Byron-Corbin v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION DENISE LOUISE BYRON-CORBIN, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 8:24-cv-00703-MSS-CPT COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to the Commissioner’s Decision, (Dkt. 12), the Memorandum in Support of the Commissioner’s Decision, (Dkt. 17), and Plaintiff’s Reply Brief. (Dkt. 18) On January 25, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite issued a Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 19), which recommended: (i) the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and the case be remanded, with the instruction that the Commissioner reassess the entire record on remand and provide sufficient explanations and readily identifiable evidentiary support for her decision, including with respect to the two challenges raised by Plaintiff here; (ii) the Clerk be directed to enter Judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and close the case; and (iii) the Court reserve jurisdiction on the matter of attorney’s fees and costs pending further motion. (Id.) The Parties have filed no objection to Judge Tuite’s Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed.

In the Eleventh Circuit, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). Absent specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 19), is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order.

2. Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to the Commissioner’s Decision, (Dkt. 12), is GRANTED.

3. The Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff's claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income is REVERSED.

The case is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.

4, The Court retains jurisdiction for the sole purpose of addressing Plaintiffs alleged entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff shall be permitted to file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. The Commissioner shall have fourteen (14) days thereafter to respond.

5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case and terminate any pending motions.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 10th day of February 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Any Unrepresented Person