UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 03, 2023 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

MELINDA PEREZ CHARLES, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00120 § ANDREW SAUL1, § § Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION On December 2, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued a “Memorandum and Recommendation” (M&R, D.E. 26), recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for attorney’s fees. The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);

(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s M&R is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s M&R. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc.,

(5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s M&R (D.E. 26), and all other relevant documents in the record, and

1 Defendant Andrew Saul is an official who has been replaced by Kilolo Kijakazi, but there has been no formal substitution of parties. 1 / 2 finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the unopposed Application for EAJA fees (D.E. 24, 25) is GRANTED and Charles’s attorney of record is awarded the sum of $9,043.29 in attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA and is reimbursed $402 in costs. In accordance with Astrue v. Ratliff,

(2010), the attorney fee award shall be made payable to Plaintiff, Michelle Perez Charles, and mailed in care of her attorney, Karl E. Osterhout, Osterhout Berger Disability Law LLC, 521 Cedar Way, Ste. 200, Oakmont, PA, 15139. ORDERED on January 3, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2