ERTEL

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Sean P. Flynn’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 29), filed on June 17, 2022, recommending that Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Doc. # 28) be granted. 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 the 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. # 29) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees Under

42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Doc. # 28) is GRANTED. (3) Plaintiff’s counsel should be awarded $7,308.09 in attorney’s fees. (4) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 2nd day of August, 2022. fan 9. Menerby (neiVh VIR IA M. HERNANDEZ’COVINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE