UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 15, 2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

ANITA PRADO BUSTOS, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00003 § MARTIN O'MALLEY, § § Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

On April 30, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued her “Memorandum and Recommendation” (D.E. 21), recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s application for EAJA attorney’s fees (D.E. 19), which was unopposed (D.E. 20). The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation. 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 memorandum and recommendation 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 memorandum and recommendation. 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 memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 21), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly the application for EAJA fees (D.E. 19) is GRANTED and Bustos’s attorney of record is hereby awarded the sum of $9,563 in attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA. In accordance with Astrue v. Ratliff,

(2010), the attorney fee award should be made payable to Plaintiff, Anita Prado Bustos, and mailed in care of her attorney, Karl E. Osterhout. ORDERED on May 15, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2