BLAKE
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant the Commissioner's unopposed motion, reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding the case for further administrative proceedings.
Plaintiff applied for Social Security Disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The Commissioner denied these applications. The Commission…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the Commissioner's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Reversal and Remand of the Cause to Defendant, (Dkt. 15), and Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone's Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 16) Therein, Judge Sansone recommends that the Motion be granted, the Commissioner's decision be reversed, and the case be remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Id.) Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). 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, 512 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo 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); see Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). 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, and in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 16), is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order. 2. The Commissioner's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Reversal and Remand of the Cause to Defendant, (Dkt. 15), is GRANTED.
3. The Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's applications for Social Child Disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits is REVERSED.
4. The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the reasons stated in the Commissioner's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Reversal and Remand of the Cause to Defendant. (Dkt. 15)
5. The Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor, terminate all other pending motions, and CLOSE THIS CASE.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 18th day of September 2025.
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Any Unrepresented Person
MARY S SCRIVEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3