THEOBALD
v.
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.
In this Social Security benefits case, the district court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and granted plaintiff's counsel's motion for attorney fees under Section 206(b)(1) of the Social Security Act, awarding a gross fee of $30,705.74, net $24,295.18 after deducting an EAJA fee award.
The court granted plaintiff's counsel's motion for attorney fees, awarding a gross attorney fee of $30,705.74 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A), with a net disbursement of $24,295.18 after deducting the $6,410.56 EAJA fee award.
[1] When no timely objections are filed to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court adopts the magistrate judge's factual findings.
[2] A district court may conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation even in the absence of objections.
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“As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge's factual findings in the Report [DE 29] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion.”
Establishes the standard for review when no objections to a magistrate judge's report are timely filed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff's counsel, attorney Heather Freeman, sought authorization for an attorney fee under Section 206(b)(1) of the Social Security Act. A magistra…
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 Social Security Act Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s counsel’s Amended Motion for Authorization of an Attorney Fee Under Section 206(b)(1) of the Social Security Act [DE 26], and Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch’s November 21, 2024 Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [DE 29]. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 29] have been filed, and the time for filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 29] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F. 2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F. 2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993).
Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 29] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning and conclusions.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 29] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Plaintiff's counsel’s Amended Motion for Authorization of an Attorney Fee Under Section 206(b)(1) of the Social Security Act [DE 26] is GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff's counsel, attorney Heather Freeman, is hereby awarded a gross attorney fee of $30,705.74 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A).
Deducting the $6,410.56 EAJA fee award, Attorney Freeman shall receive a net disbursement of $24,295.18. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 6th day of December, 2024. fl ; “a 4 : “4 if % f ? f tne i ye Zo #4 v Paty 4 ‘4 ase Af
CA MAGIA AYN GC
VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LoCONTE v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745 (11th Cir. 1988)
- Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1993)
- LoConte v. Dugger, 488 U.S. 958 (U.S. 1988)