Sussan v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT PIERCE DIVISION CASE NO. 23-14032-CIV-CANNON/McCabe KELLI SUSSAN, Plaintiff, v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ____________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND PERMITTING REPLEADING THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 18]. The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe for a Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 19]. On October 18, 2024, Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted [ECF No. 21]. Objections to the Report were due on or before November 1, 2024 [ECF No. 21 p. 5]. Neither party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired.

To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, the Court CASE NO. 23-14032-CIV-CANNON/McCabe may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; see Todd v. Fayette Cnty. Sch. Dist., 998 F.3d 1203, 1214 n.6 (11th Cir. 2021) (“[W]e can review unobjected-to errors for plain error.”). Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2013).

Following review, the Court finds no clear error of fact in the well-reasoned Report and no errors of law.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 21] is ACCEPTED.

2. Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney’s Fees [ECF No. 18] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs counsel shall be awarded a total of $6,987.75, subject to the requisite refund to Plaintiff of the prior EAJA award of $868.08 [see ECF No. 17].

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 7th day of November 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record