UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 1:22-cv-20544-KMM AMAN SULTAN AL AMED, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. / ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Unopposed Application for Attorney’s Fees and Costs Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”),

(d) (“Motion” or “Mot”) (ECF No. 24). Therein, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order granting it $7,148.40 in attorney’s fees. See Mot. at 2. The matter was referred to the Honorable Lauren F. Louis, United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 26). On May 18, 2023, Magistrate Judge Louis issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 29), recommending that the Motion be GRANTED, in Part, and DENIED, in part. No objections to the R&R were filed, and the time to do so has now passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review.

Yet when a party has not properly objected to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV,

, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263,

, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel,

(M.D. Fla. 2000))). In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis concludes that the fee award sought by Plaintiff's counsel was based on the December Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) average instead of the 2022 Annual CPI Average. See id. at 3. After independent calculation, Judge Louis finds that attorney’s fees in the sum of $7,048.50 are reasonable based on the hours worked and tasks performed. See id. at 3. This Court agrees. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge Louis’s R&R (ECF No. 29) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED, in Part, and DENIED, in Part. Plaintiff is awarded $7,048.50 in attorney’s fees, to be paid to Plaintiff's counsel, contingent upon a determination by Defendant that Plaintiff owes no qualifying debt to the Government. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this _7th day of August, 2023. AT Myre K. MICHAEL MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE c: All counsel of record