Reid v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

Reid v. Commissioner of Social Security

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

SHARI LAVERN REID,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:19-cv-747-FtM-38NPM

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. / ORDER1 Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 25) on Plaintiff’s Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2312(d) (Doc. 23). Defendant opposed Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 24). Judge Mizell recommends granting the Motion in part. Neither party timely objected, so the matter is ripe for review. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s R&R. See

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1); see also Williams v. Wainwright,

681 F.2d 732

(11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn,

993 F.2d 1

Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. 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. Co.,

37 F.3d 603, 604

(11th Cir. 1994). After careful consideration and an independent review of the file, the Court accepts and adopts the R&R (Doc. 25) in full. Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order. (2) Plaintiff’s Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2312(d) (Doc. 23) is GRANTED and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s request for oral argument is DENIED.

a. Plaintiff is AWARDED $6,744.50 in attorney’s fees. b. If the United States Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, the Government may pay these fees directly to Plaintiff’s counsel. (3) The Clerk is DIRECTED to amend the judgment to include a

$6,744.50 attorney’s fees award in favor of Plaintiff. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 21, 2020.

, ites WObLataathe 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Reference

Status
Unknown