LUCAS-WILLIAMSON
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 Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for EAJA fees.
Plaintiff sought attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending th…
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 Equal Access To Justice Act (Eaja) Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Currently before the undersigned is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Amanda A. Sansone. (Doc. 30). By the R&R, Judge Sansone recommends Plaintiff Brienna Marie Lucas-Williamson’s Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2412(d) (“Motion’’), (Doc. 22), be granted in part and denied in part, (Doc. 25). No party filed written objections to the R&R, and the time for doing so has elapsed.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), Congress vested Article III judges with the power to “designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court,” subject to various exceptions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Act further vests magistrate judges with authority to submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition by an Article III judge. /d. § 636(b)(1)(B). “Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to [the magistrate
judge’s]| proposed findings and recommendations.” Jd. 636(b)(1). On review, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” Jd. When no timely and specific objections are filed, caselaw indicates the district judge should review the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations using a clearly erroneous standard. See Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc., 817 F. Supp. 1558, 1562 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (Kovachevich, J.). After careful consideration of the R&R, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the undersigned finds the R&R is well-reasoned, correct, and not clearly erroneous. .
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Judge Sansone’s R&R, (Doc. 30), is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. 2. Plaintiffs Motion, (Doe. 22), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART.
3. Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,400.97. ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 12th day of December, 2019.
Cc . fen)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel/Parties of Record