REID
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

M.D. Fla. | 2020-10-21
No. 2:19-cv-747
District Court, M.D. Florida (2020)

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 accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting the petition for EAJA fees in part and awarding attorney's fees.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sought attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the petition in part. Neither…

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
Legal Conclusions De Novo Review Of Legal Conclusions Equal Access To Justice Act De Novo Review

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Legal Conclusions cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Defendant. /

ORDER1

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 25) on Plaintiff’s Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2312(d) (Doc. 23). Defendant opposed Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 24). 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 requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d

ORDERED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order. (2) Plaintiff’s Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2312(d) (Doc. 23) is GRANTED and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s request for oral argument is DENIED.

a. Plaintiff is AWARDED $6,744.50 in attorney’s fees. b. 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 amend the judgment to include a

$6,744.50 attorney’s fees award in favor of Plaintiff. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 21, 2020.

, ites WObLataathe 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Footnotes
1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, 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. 25) in full. Accordingly, it is now

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw