UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

CALLAN E. VAN INGEN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:23-cv-2046-JSS-LHP

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. ___________________________________/ ORDER In June 2024, Plaintiff filed an unopposed application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA),

, seeking $7,504.80 “payable to [Plaintiff’s] lead attorney.” (Dkt. 27 at 6; see Dkt. 27-6 (a document signed by Plaintiff under penalty of perjury purporting to assign his entitlement to an EAJA award to his attorney).) In July 2024, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part. (Dkt. 28 at 7–8.) Specifically, the magistrate judge recommends that Plaintiff be awarded $7,504.80 under the EAJA but that in light of the Anti-Assignment Act,

, Defendant not be required to “honor the assignment of EAJA fees directly to [Plaintiff’s] counsel.” (Dkt. 28 at 7–8.) No party has filed objections to the recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. Upon consideration, the court adopts the recommendation in full. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations made by a magistrate judge, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations.”

(b)(1); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. A party must serve and file written objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of it,

(b)(1)(C), and the failure to object in a timely fashion “waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions,” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. With respect to dispositive matters, the district judge must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the recommendation to which a

timely objection is made.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Farias-Gonzalez,

, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A district court makes a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate’s report to which objections are filed.”). Even in the absence of a specific objection, the district judge reviews any

legal conclusions de novo. Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co.,

(11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs,

(M.D. Fla. 2019). Here, upon conducting a careful and complete review of the magistrate judge’s recommendation and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court agrees with

the recommendation in full. Accordingly: 1. The magistrate judge’s recommendation (Dkt. 28) is ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff’s unopposed application for attorney fees (Dkt. 27) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 3. Plaintiff is awarded $7,504.80 under the EAJA. 4. Defendant is not required to honor the assignment of EAJA fees directly to Plaintiff's counsel. ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on January 28, 2025.

Le JULIE S. SNEED UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

-3-