JAMES EDWARD JOHNSON
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
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.
In this Social Security Administration benefits case, Plaintiff James Edward Johnson sought attorney fees after prevailing against the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the motion for attorney fees in the amount of $20,505.00.
The court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and awarded attorney fees in the amount of $20,505.00.
“A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).”
Establishes the standard of review for magistrate judge reports in the district court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney Fees on August 18, 2025. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on September 16, 2025, recommen…
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 Clear Error Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres (the “Report”). [ECF No. 33].
On August 18, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel (“Petitioner”) filed a Motion for Attorney Fees (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 32].
On September 16, 2025, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending the Motion be granted, both by default (as no opposition had been filed) and on its merits. [ECF No. 33]. No party has objected to the Report. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation are accorded de novo review if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). As no objections have been filed, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding no clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Torres’ findings and conclusion that the Motion should be granted.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 33], is ADOPTED in full; (2) Petitioner’s Motion [ECF No. 32] is GRANTED. Petitioner shall be awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $20,505.00. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 3rd day of October, 2025.
\ | j 4 /
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRACT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 2001 WL 1850837 (M.D. Fla. 2001)