IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

§ BRYAN WHEAT, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:22-cv-277-JDK-KNM § COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL § SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, § § Defendant. § §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Bryan Wheat filed this appeal from a final administrative decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying his application for disability insurance benefits. On March 22, 2024, the Court reversed the Commissioner’s final administrative decision and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for attorney fees. Docket No. 22. The motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact and recommendations for disposition. Docket No. 23. On June 24, 2024, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the Court grant the motion and award Plaintiff $11,593.65 pursuant to the EAJA,

(d), and costs totaling $502.00, for a total payment of $12,095.65. Docket No. 24. No objections have been filed. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation.

(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court

examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute,

(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, the parties did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See

United States v. Wilson,

(5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied,

(1989) (holding that the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to

law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 24) as the findings of this Court. The motion for an award of attorney’s fees (Docket No. 22) is GRANTED. The Commissioner shall pay Plaintiff a total of $12,095.65 for fees incurred, including $11,593.65 pursuant to the EAJA,

(d), and $502.00 in costs. Payment shall be made with funds payable to Plaintiff and forwarded to Plaintiff through her attorney of record. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 19th day of November, 2024. G5, Kom UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE