ROUSSIN
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 accepted and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding EAJA fees.
Plaintiff filed an unopposed petition for EAJA fees. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting in part and denying in part the petition. The district …
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 Equal Access To Justice Act (Eaja) Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
SECURITY and UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Defendants. /
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) 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
Instead, when parties don’t 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 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. 25) 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 $8,163.26 in attorney’s fees, $400 in costs, and $22.80 in expenses. b. If the United States Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, the Government
may pay these fees and costs directly to Plaintiff's counsel.
c. Plaintiff's request for $12.00 in paralegal fees is denied. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff for $8,163.26 in attorney’s fees, $400 in costs, and $22.80 in expenses. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 4, 2022.
UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGE
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)