ANDERSON, JR.
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 to grant the Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Plaintiff Walter L. Anderson, Jr. moved for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motio…
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 Legal Conclusions cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Amanda A. Sansone’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 27), filed on March 1, 2023, recommending that Plaintiff Walter L. Anderson, Jr.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. # 26) should be granted and Mr. Anderson should be awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $16,310.16. 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 and grants the Motion. 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. # 27) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED.
(2) Plaintiff Walter L. Anderson, Jr.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. # 26) is GRANTED. Mr. Anderson is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $16,310.16. (3) The fee is payable directly to Mr. Anderson’s counsel if it is determined that Mr. Anderson does not owe a debt to the government. (4) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 20th day of March, 2023. lagi Hunerby (noi VIR IA 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)
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 1993 WL 259424 (S.D. Fla. 1993)