ERTEL
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 adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney's fees and paralegal fees.
Plaintiff Sherry Ertel filed an unopposed motion for attorney's fees. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion. No objections were filed.…
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 Paralegal Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Sean P. Flynn’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 24), filed on August 7, 2020, recommending that Plaintiff Sherry Ertel’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees be granted. As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed and the time for filing objections has lapsed. The Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation, grants Ertel’s motion and awards her attorney’s fees in the amount of $920.16 and paralegal fees in the amount of $510.00, for a total award of $1,430.16. Discussion After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 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 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendation. 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. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F. 3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 24) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) Plaintiff Sherry Ertel’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s
Fees (Doc. # 23) is GRANTED. (3) Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, Ertel shall be awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $920.16 and paralegal fees in the amount of $510.00, for a total award of $1,430.16, if she is not indebted to the United States Department of the Treasury. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 24th day of August, 2020.
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ’COVINGTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 1993 WL 259424 (S.D. Fla. 1993)