SOUTH
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, granting the petition for EAJA fees in part.
Plaintiff sought attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) after prevailing in a Social Security case. The Magistrate Jud…
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. /
ORDER1
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 35) on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2412(d) (Doc. 34). Judge Mizell recommends granting the Motion in part. Neither party timely 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 the magistrate judge’s R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
After careful consideration and an independent review of the file, the Court accepts and adopts the R&R (Doc. 35) in full. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 35) 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. 34) is GRANTED in part.
a. Plaintiff is AWARDED $8,212.49 in attorney’s fees. b. Plaintiff is AWARDED $400 in costs. c. Plaintiff is AWARDED $20.85 in expenses. d. Plaintiff’s request for paralegal fees is DENIED.
e. If the United States Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, the Government may pay these fees directly to Plaintiff’s counsel. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff for $8,212.49 in attorney’s fees, $400 in costs, and $20.85 in expenses. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 17, 2021.
ites POLSTER atta
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)