PEREZ

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), Plaintiff moves for $8,770.65 in attorney fees and $405.00 in costs, for a total of $9,175.65. (Dkt. 21.) Defendant does not oppose the motion. (Id. at 4.) The magistrate judge assigned to this case recommends granting the motion, awarding Plaintiff's counsel $8,770.65 in attorney fees and $405.00 in costs and accordingly directing the Clerk to enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor for this $9,175.65, and permitting Defendant in its discretion to honor Plaintiff's assignment of fees to counsel if the United States Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a debt to the United States Government. (Dkt. 22.) No party has filed objections to the recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. Upon consideration, the court adopts the recommendation in full.

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations made by a magistrate judge, the district court “may accept, reject,

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. A party must serve and file written objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of it, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and the failure to object in a timely fashion "waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions,” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. With respect to dispositive matters, the district court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the recommendation to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F. 3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A district court makes a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate's report to which objections are filed."). Even in the absence of a specific objection, the district court reviews any legal conclusions de novo. Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).

Here, upon conducting a careful and complete review of the magistrate judge's recommendation and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court agrees with the recommendation in full.

Accordingly:

1. The magistrate judge's recommendation (Dkt. 22) is ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney fees and costs (Dkt. 21) is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff's counsel is AWARDED to $8,770.65 in attorney fees and $405.00 in costs, and accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor for this $9,175.65.

4. In its discretion, Defendant may honor Plaintiff's assignment of fees to counsel if the United States Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a debt to the United States Government.

ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on July 16, 2025.

JULIE S. SNEED UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

-3-