Reyes Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Reyes Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Trial Court Opinion

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Francisco Perez, Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 21-20582-Civ-Scola Kiolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner ) of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) Order on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Remand Neither party has objected to Magistrate Judge Goodman’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 29) concerning the Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees, and the time to do so has passed. “In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

208 F. App’x 781, 783

(11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones,

863 F.2d 815, 822

(11th Cir. 1989) (alterations omitted). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.” Local Mag. J. R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Macort,

208 F. App’x at 783

-84 (quoting Heath,

863 F.2d at 822

) (alterations omitted). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Macort,

208 F. App’x at 784

(quoting Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp.,

170 F.3d 734

, 739 (7th Cir. 1999)). A court, in its discretion, need not consider arguments that were not, in the first instance, presented to the magistrate judge. Williams v. McNeil,

557 F.3d 1287, 1291

(11th Cir. 2009). Finding no clear error with Judge Goodman’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 29), the Court adopts it in full. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 277) for attorney’s fees and awards the Plaintiff $5,788.97 in attorney’s fees contingent upon a determination by the Defendant that the Plaintiff owes no qualifying, preexisting debt(s) to the Government. Done and ordered in chambers at Miami, Florida on June 7 2022.

Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown