LILLEY
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.
In a Social Security disability benefits appeal, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and granted the plaintiff's petition for reasonable attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), awarding $35,618.50 in fees to be paid from past-due benefits, with an option to offset previously awarded EAJA fees.
The Court awarded $35,618.50 in attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A), to be paid from past-due benefits, with the plaintiff's counsel having the option to either reimburse the plaintiff the previously awarded $7,065.79 in EAJA fees or deduct that amount from the § 406(b) award, resulting in a net attorney fee award of $28,532.71.
[1] A magistrate judge's factual findings are adopted and deemed incorporated into a district court's opinion when no timely objections are filed.
[2] A district court may conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's report 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 30] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing the Magistrate Judge's Report when no objections are filed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff sought reasonable attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in connection with a Social Security disability benefits case. The case invol…
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.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William Matthewman (the “Report”) [DE 30], issued on April 15, 2024, and Plaintiff's Petition and Memorandum in Support for Reasonable Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) [DE 26]. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 30] 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 30] 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 30] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis and conclusions.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [DE 30] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED;
2. Plaintiff Petition [DE 26] is hereby GRANTED as follows:
a. Plaintiff's counsel is awarded $35,618.50 in attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A), to be paid out of Plaintiff's past-due benefits in accordance with agency policy;
b. Plaintiff's counsel may either collect this amount and reimburse Plaintiff the $7,065.79 previously recovered in EAJA fees, or Plaintiff's counsel may deduct the $7,065.79 EAJA fees award amount from the $35,618.50 section 406(b)(1)(A) fees award, resulting in a total attorney's fees amount of $28,532.71, to be paid out of Plaintiff's past-due benefits.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 30th day of April, 2024.
William P. Dimitrouleas WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge
Copies to: Counsel of Record Magistrate Judge William Matthewman
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)