SUSSAN
v.
ACTING 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.
In a Social Security appeal, the district court reviewed a magistrate judge's recommendation to grant the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Finding no clear error in fact or law, the court awarded the plaintiff's counsel $6,987.75 in attorney's fees, subject to refund of a prior EAJA award.
The plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees is granted. The plaintiff's counsel shall be awarded a total of $6,987.75, subject to the requisite refund to the plaintiff of the prior EAJA award of $868.08.
“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 procedural requirement for challenging magistrate judge recommendations and the consequences of failing to object
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff filed a motion for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in a Social Security case. A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommenda…
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 Clear Error Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 18]. The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe for a Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 19]. On October 18, 2024, Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted [ECF No. 21]. Objections to the Report were due on or before November 1, 2024 [ECF No. 21 p. 5]. Neither party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired.
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. 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
CASE NO. 23-14032-CIV-CANNON/McCabe
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; see Todd v. Fayette Cnty. Sch. Dist., 998 F. 3d 1203, 1214 n.6 (11th Cir. 2021) (“[W]e can review unobjected-to errors for plain error."). Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Dupree v. Warden, 715 F. 3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2013).
Following review, the Court finds no clear error of fact in the well-reasoned Report and no errors of law.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 21] is ACCEPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees [ECF No. 18] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's counsel shall be awarded a total of $6,987.75, subject to the requisite refund to Plaintiff of the prior EAJA award of $868.08 [see ECF No. 17].
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 7th day of November 2024.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Dupree v. Warden, Attorney Gen., State of Ala., 715 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2013)
- Jerri Todd v. Fayette Cnty. Sch. Dist., 998 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2021)