JIMENEZ
v.
O'MALLEY
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 district court granted plaintiff's unopposed petition for attorney's fees in the amount of $10,900 under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation without modification, finding no clear error in the record.
The court granted plaintiff's unopposed petition for attorney's fees and awarded $10,900 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The court affirmed and adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation in its entirety.
“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]'s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”
Establishes the applicable standard of review when no party objects to a magistrate judge's recommendation—clear error standard rather than de novo review.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Raul Jimenez filed an unopposed petition for attorney's fees on May 15, 2025. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation recomm…
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 Petition For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (“R&R") of the Honorable Panayotta Augustin-Birch, United States Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 23], regarding Plaintiff, Raul Jimenez's (“Plaintiff"), Unopposed Petition for Attorney Fees [ECF No. 22] (“Motion”), filed May 15, 2025. In her R&R, Magistrate Judge Augustin- Birch recommends that Plaintiff's Motion be granted and that the Court award $10,900 in attorney's fees. The parties have not filed objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed.¹
¹ When no party has timely objected, “the court need only satisfy itself there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress's intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]'s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.").
THE COURT has reviewed the R&R, the Motion, and the relevant record and agrees with the reasoning and recommendations set forth therein. Finding no clear error, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Judge Augustin-Birch's R&R [ECF No. 23]. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Unopposed Petition for Attorney Fees [ECF No. 22] is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff is awarded $10,900 in attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
3. If the Commissioner concludes that Plaintiff does not owe any debt to the government, the Commissioner may honor an assignment of fees to Plaintiff's counsel, Sarah H. Bohr. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in the Southern District of Florida, this 6th day of June, 2025.
mea
MELISSA DAMIAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: Counsel of record
2