IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ALBANY DIVISION

S.L., : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-167 (LAG) (TQL) : Commissioner of Social Security, : : Defendant. : : ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 19) on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees under the Social Security Act

(b) (Motion). (Doc. 17). In the Motion, Plaintiff “requests approval of a fee of $17,172.17 less the $670.09 previously paid to the Plaintiff’s attorney under the Equal Access to Justice Act for a net total of $16,502.08.” (Doc. 17-1 at 2). In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part, and “that Plaintiff’s counsel be authorized to recover $2,304.91 out of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits.” (Doc. 19 at 5). The R&R triggered the fourteen-day period provided under

(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) for the Parties to file written objections. Neither Party filed an objection to the R&R. (See Docket). District courts have “the duty to conduct a careful and complete review” to determine “whether to accept, reject, or modify [a] magistrate judge’s report and recommendations[.]” Williams v. Wainwright,

(11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (citation omitted). The court reviews de novo dispositive portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to which a party objects.

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The court reviews unobjected-to portions of the report and recommendation and non-dispositive orders for clear error but may order a hearing or conduct a de novo review if necessary. See

(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Wainwright,

. CONCLUSION Here, because no Party objected to the R&R, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See

(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Wainwright,

. Upon careful and complete review of the R&R and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error in the R&R. Accordingly, the R&R (Doc. 19) should be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED, ADOPTED, and made the Order of this Court for reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein. Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Plaintiff’s counsel is authorized to recover $2,304.91 out of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits. SO ORDERED, this 26th day of December, 2024.

/s/ Leslie A. Gardner LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT