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

PATRICIA CHAPMAN, § §

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-CV-00294- Plaintiff, § JDK

§ v. §

§ COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL § SECURITY, § § Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

! " # $ % & ’ ( & ) * + , * - * . , / 0 ( 1 " 2 1 3 3 / ( 2 & 1 4 1 ( 5 6 ( 7 8 ( " 3 1 0 $ 9 ( " ’ " : 7 7 : ; $ 9 ( 7 7 0 1 4 ( 2 1 : " 3 : & ( 2 2 : & " $ ) 3 $ $ ; ’ " 9 $ & 2 6 $ < = ’ ( 0 > 4 4 $ ; ; 2 : ? ’ ; 2 1 4 $ > 4 2 @ A < > ? > B C D E : 4 F $ 2 G : D * H D I 6 $ ( 7 7 0 1 4 ( 2 1 : " J ( ; & $ 3 $ & & $ 9 2 : ? ’ 9 K $ L : M $ 3 : & 3 1 " 9 1 " K ; : 3 3 ( 4 2 ( " 9 & $ 4 : 8 8 $ " 9 ( 2 1 : " 3 : & 9 1 ; 7 : ; 1 2 1 : " D E : 4 F $ 2 G : D * N D ! " # $ % & ’ ( & ) * H , * - * . , ? ’ 9 K $ L : M $ 1 ; ; ’ $ 9 ( O $ 7 : & 2 ( " 9 O $ 4 : 8 8 $ " 9 ( 2 1 : " , & $ 4 : 8 8 $ " 9 1 " K 2 6 ( 2 / 0 ( 1 " 2 1 3 3 P; 8 : 2 1 : " % $ K & ( " 2 $ 9 , ( " 9 2 6 ( 2 2 6 $ 5 : 8 8 1 ; ; 1 : " $ & 7 ( ) 2 : / 0 ( 1 " 2 1 3 3 2 6 $ ; ’ 8 : 3 Q H , - + R D N S 1 " 3 $ $ ; 7 ’ & ; ’ ( " 2 2 : < > ? > , * H T D U D 5 D V * . R * @ 9 C , ( " 9 Q . - * D - - 1 " 4 : ; 2 ; D E : 4 F $ 2 G : D + - D G : : % W $ 4 2 1 : " ; 6 ( M $ % $ $ " 3 1 0 $ 9 , ( " 9 2 6 $ 2 1 8 $ 7 $ & 1 : 9 3 : & 3 1 0 1 " K : % W $ 4 2 1 : " ; 6 ( ; 7 ( ; ; $ 9 D Because objections to Judge Love’s Report have not been filed, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Assn,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The Court has reviewed the filings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson,

(5th Cir.), cert. denied,

,

(1989) (holding that where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Docket No. 30) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's motion (Docket No. 28) is GRANTED and the Commissioner shall pay to Plaintiff the sum of $8,031.97 in fees pursuant to EAJA,

(d), and $402.00 in costs, by making the payment payable to Plaintiff and sending the payment to Plaintiff's counsel. Because Plaintiff's counsel has already received fees pursuant to

(b) in this case (Docket No. 25), Plaintiff's counsel shall immediately transmit payment directly to Plaintiff upon receipt.

Signed this Mar 19, 2024 JEREMY DJ KERNODEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE