HOLSWORTH
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY

S.D. Fla. | 2025-08-25
No. 24-14191-CIV
2025 FFL 21893 District Court, S.D. Florida (2025)

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.

Synopsis

The District Court accepted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation granting plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court awarded $6,447.10 in attorney's fees and $405.00 in costs to be paid from the Judgment Fund.


Holding

The court granted plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, awarding $6,447.10 in attorney's fees and $405.00 in costs to be paid from the Judgment Fund pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2412.


Headnotes

[1] A district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's report to which specific written objections are made.

[2] A district court may accept a magistrate judge's recommendation on portions of a report to which no objections are filed, provided there is no clear error on the face of…

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made.”

Establishes the standard for challenging magistrate judge recommendations and the procedural requirement for objections.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff Holsworth challenged a Social Security decision. The case proceeded through the magistrate judge system, with Magistrate Judge Reinhart issu…

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.


Opinion of the Court

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Reinhart's Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), issued on August 19, 2025 [ECF No. 27]. The Report recommends the Court grant Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 26]. Both Plaintiff and Defendant filed Notices of No Objections to the Report [ECF Nos. 28–29]. Upon appropriate review of the unobjected-to Report, the Report [ECF No. 27] is ACCEPTED, and Plaintiff's Motion [ECF No. 26] is GRANTED.

***

To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

CASE NO. 24-14191-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784.

Upon full review, the Court finds no clear error of fact or law in the unobjected-to Report. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 27] is ACCEPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion [ECF No. 26] is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff is awarded a total of $6,447.10 in attorney's fees and $405.00 in costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act to be paid from the Judgment Fund according to 28 U.S.C. §2412.

ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 25th day of August 2025.

AILEEN M. CANNON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record Magistrate Judge Reinhart

2


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw