VAN INGEN

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

In June 2024, Plaintiff filed an unopposed application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, seeking $7,504.80 "payable to [Plaintiff's] lead attorney." (Dkt. 27 at 6; see Dkt. 27-6 (a document signed by Plaintiff under penalty of perjury purporting to assign his entitlement to an EAJA award to his attorney).) In July 2024, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part. (Dkt. 28 at 7-8.) Specifically, the magistrate judge recommends that Plaintiff be awarded $7,504.80 under the EAJA but that in light of the Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3727, Defendant not be required to “honor the assignment of EAJA fees directly to [Plaintiff's] counsel." (Dkt. 28 at 7-8.) No party has filed objections to the recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. Upon consideration, the court adopts the recommendation in full.

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and

recommendations made by a magistrate judge, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. A party must serve and file written objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of it, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and the failure to object in a timely fashion "waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions," 11th Cir. R. 3-1. With respect to dispositive matters, the district judge must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the recommendation to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F. 3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A district court makes a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate's report to which objections are filed."). Even in the absence of a specific objection, the district judge reviews any legal conclusions de novo. Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).

Here, upon conducting a careful and complete review of the magistrate judge's recommendation and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court agrees with the recommendation in full.

Accordingly:

1. The magistrate judge's recommendation (Dkt. 28) is ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's unopposed application for attorney fees (Dkt. 27) is GRANTED in

part and DENIED in part. 3. Plaintiff is awarded $7,504.80 under the EAJA. 4. Defendant is not required to honor the assignment of EAJA fees directly to Plaintiff's counsel.

ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on January 28, 2025.

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

JULIE S. SNEED UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-