Schadel v. Commissioner Social Security
Schadel v. Commissioner Social Security
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
JOSEPH H. SCHADEL,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:19-cv-697-J-34JBT
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17; Report), entered by the Honorable Joel B. Toomey, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 16, 2020. In the Report, Judge Toomey recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. See Report at 2, 8. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If no specific objections to findings of fact are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn,
993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993; See also
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co.,
37 F.3d 603, 604(11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:08-mc-8-FtM-29SPC,
2007 WL 1428615, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007). Upon independent review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment AFFIRMING the Commissioner's final decision and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 4th day of February, 2020.
United States District Judge
ja Copies to: Counsel of Record
Reference
- Status
- Unknown