WEIST
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

M.D. Fla. | 2022-10-14
No. 2:21-cv-768
District Court, M.D. Florida (2022)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting in part Plaintiff's petition for EAJA fees.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff Sandra Weist petitioned for EAJA fees. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending granting the petition in part. N…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(C) 28 U.S.C. § 2412(D) Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(C) cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

ORDER1

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (R&R). (Doc. 30). Judge Mizell recommends granting in part Plaintiff Sandra Weist’s Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Doc. 24). No party objects to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired. So the R&R is ripe for review. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,” a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that

Court finds no plain error. So it accepts and adopts the R&R in full. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 30) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the findings incorporated herein. 1. Plaintiff Sandra Weist’s Petition for EAJA Fees (Doc. 24) is GRANTED in part.

2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to amend the judgment to include a total award to Plaintiff of $8,509.09 for attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. This award may be paid directly to Plaintiff’s lawyer if the United States Department of Treasury determines that no federal debt is owed by Plaintiff. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 138, 2022.

ites POLSTER atta

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Footnotes
1 Disclaimer: Papers hyperlinked to CM/ECF may be subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or their services or products, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is not responsible for a hyperlink’s functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. a district judge review the report and recommendation de novo. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). Instead, when parties do not object, a district court need only correct plain error as demanded by the interests of justice. See, e.g., Symonette v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985). Plain error exists if (1) “an error occurred”; (2) “the error was plain”; (3) “it affected substantial rights”; and (4) “not correcting the error would seriously affect the fairness of the judicial proceedings.” Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 197 F. 3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999). After careful consideration and an independent review of the case, the

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw