TIBBETTS
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
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.
The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the petition for EAJA fees.
Plaintiff sought attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The Magistrate Judge recommended granting in part and denying in part t…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 2412(D) cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant. /
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (Doc. 24). Judge McCoy recommends granting in part and denying in part the Motion. Neither party objected, so the matter 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,” the magistrate judge’s R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the
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 examining the file independently and upon considering Judge McCoy’s findings and recommendations, the Court accepts and adopts the
R&R. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order. 2. Plaintiff’s Unopposed Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (Doc. 24) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. a. Plaintiff is AWARDED $8,294.00 in attorney’s fees.
b. If the United States Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, the Government may exercise its discretion in determining whether the fees should be paid directly to Plaintiff's counsel. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff for $8,294.00 in attorney’s fees. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on May 10, 2022.
, Lh platrathe 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985)
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999)