Highberg v. O'Malley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT December 19, 2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk VICTORIA DIVISION

DEBORAH HIGHBERG, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:24-CV-00018 § MARTIN O'MALLEY, § § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On December 3, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” (D.E. 12). 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); 28 U.S.C. § 636(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., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (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. 12), and all other relevant / 2 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 Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees (D.E. 11). The Court ORDERS Defendant to pay $5,322.06 pursuant to the EAJA directly to Plaintiff, in care of counsel.

ORDERED on December 19, 2024. eke GONZAIGS RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2/2