Jennifer Anne Foster v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

SUONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESTS RDIICSTTR OIFC TF LCOORUIRDTA FORT PIERCE DIVISION CASE NO. 24-14242-CIV-CANNON/Augustin-Birch JENNIFER ANNE FOSTER, Plaintiff, v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), issued on October 7, 2025 [ECF No. 25]. The Report recommends that Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for an award of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 23] be granted. No party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired. Upon review of the Report and the Motion, the Report [ECF No. 25] is ACCEPTED, and the Motion [ECF No. 23] is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Report. *** 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, CASE NO. 24-14242-CIV-CANNON/Augustin-Birch the Court 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.

Following review, the Court finds no clear error in the Report. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 25] is ACCEPTED.

2. The Motion [ECF No. 23] is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Report.

3. Plaintiff is awarded $6,673.76 in attorney’s fees. If Plaintiff owes no debt subject to Treasury Offset, the EAJA award will be made payable to Plaintiffs attorney, D. James Tree, based upon Plaintiff's assignment. If Plaintiff owes a debt subject to Treasury Offset, the EAJA award will be applied toward the debt, with the remaining balance, if any, payable to Plaintiff and mailed to D. James Tree, 3711 Englewood Avenue, Yakima, Washington 98902 ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 2nd day of March 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record