UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 20-25071-CIV-GAYLES/TORRES

DOROTHY DORSETT,

Plaintiff, v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner for Social Security Administration,

Defendant. ___________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”). [ECF No. 22]. On December 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s entitlement to disability benefits. [ECF No. 1]. The matter was referred to Judge Torres pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive motions and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive motions. [ECF No. 2]. On August 26, 2022, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 20] be granted, the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 21] be denied, and that the decision of the Commissioner be remanded. Neither party has timely objected to the Report. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz,

(11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C.,

(M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). The Court finds no clear error with Judge Torres’s well-reasoned analysis and agrees that the decision of the Commissioner should be remanded. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Torres’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 22] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 20] is GRANTED. (3) The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 21] is DENIED. (4) This action is remanded to the Commissioner (1) for an RFC determination that expressly addresses both Plaintiff's physical and mental limitations identified at the step two analysis and (2) to reconsider and fully analyze whether Plaintiff’s mental impairments may reasonably preclude her from returning to her previous occupation. (5) This action is CLOSED for administrative purposes. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 7th day of September, 2022.

Df BLK UNITED STATES DI ICT JUDGE