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

MICHAEL SWAN, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:24-cv-242-JDK-KNM § COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL § SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, § § Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff Michael Swan filed this appeal from a final administrative decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying an application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell. On September 9, 2025, the Court reversed the Commissioner’s final administrative decision and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Docket No. 9. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act

(d). Docket No. 10. On November 18, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the Court grant the motion and award Plaintiff $9,739.25 in fees and $405.00 in costs. Docket No. 11. No written 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. Assn,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en bane), superseded on other grounds by statute,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) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’). 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. 11) as the findings of this Court. The motion for EAJA fees (Docket No. 10) is GRANTED. The Commissioner shall pay Plaintiff for fees incurred totaling $9,739.25 pursuant to the EAJA,

(d), and costs in the amount of $405.00, with the funds payable to Plaintiff and forwarded to Plaintiff through her attorney of record. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10th day of December, 2025.

JHREMYD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE