SMITH
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 accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation regarding attorney's fees.
Plaintiff sought supplemental attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the petition in …
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 De Novo Review Of Factual Findings (In Absence Of Objections) cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant. /
ORDER1
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 46), recommending that Plaintiff’s Supplemental Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2312(d) (Doc. 43) be granted in part and denied in part. No party has objected to the R&R, and the period to do so has lapsed. This matter is ripe for review. 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
Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court. district judge review factual findings de novo, and the court may accept, reject or modify the findings in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Here, Smith seeks $1,139.75 in attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), on top of the $6,997.00 already awarded. After considering the Commissioner’s objections, Judge Mizell found 2.4 hours of compensable work in 2018 and 1.3 hours of compensable work in 2019, and he recommends an hourly rate of $200 for 2018 and $205 for 2019, for a total award of $745.50. After conducting an independent examination of the file and on consideration of Judge Mizell’s findings and recommendations, the Court accepts and adopts the R&R. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 46) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the findings are incorporated herein.
(2) Plaintiff Wanda Smith’s Supplemental Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2312(d) (Doc. 43) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. a. Plaintiff Wanda Smith is awarded $746.50 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); and b. If the United States Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff Wanda Smith does not owe a federal debt, the Government may pay these fees, costs, and expenses directly to Plaintiff’s counsel.
(3) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to amend the judgment to include an additional $746.50 attorney’s fee award in favor of Plaintiff. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 4th day of September, 2019.
Lhe hlatrrthe 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
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)