Angela Elise Hudman v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

E.D. Texas

Angela Elise Hudman v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

DecidedJanuary 14, 2026

Docket6:24-cv-00202

StatusUnknown

This text of Angela Elise Hudman v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration (Angela Elise Hudman v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Angela Elise Hudman v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, (E.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

ANGELA ELISE HUDMAN, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:24-cv-202-JDK-KNM § § COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL § SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, § § Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Angela Elise Hudman filed this appeal from a final administrative decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying an application for benefits. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell. On September 9, 2025, the Court reversed the Commissioner’s final administrative decision and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Docket No. 15. On December 12, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the Court grant the motion and award Plaintiff $7,200.00 in fees. Docket No. 16. No written objections have been filed. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, the parties did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 16) as the findings of this Court. The motion for EAJA fees (Docket No. 15) is GRANTED. The Commissioner shall pay Plaintiff for fees incurred totaling $7,200.00 pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), with the funds payable to Plaintiff and forwarded to Plaintiff through her attorney of record. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of January, 2026.

JHBREMYD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

ANGELA ELISE HUDMAN, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:24-cv-202-JDK-KNM § § COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL § SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, § § Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Angela Elise Hudman filed this appeal from a final administrative decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying an application for benefits. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell. On September 9, 2025, the Court reversed the Commissioner’s final administrative decision and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Docket No. 15. On December 12, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the Court grant the motion and award Plaintiff $7,200.00 in fees. Docket No. 16. No written objections have been filed. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, the parties did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 16) as the findings of this Court. The motion for EAJA fees (Docket No. 15) is GRANTED. The Commissioner shall pay Plaintiff for fees incurred totaling $7,200.00 pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), with the funds payable to Plaintiff and forwarded to Plaintiff through her attorney of record. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of January, 2026.

JHBREMYD. KERN DLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Angela Elise Hudman v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/angela-elise-hudman-v-commissioner-social-security-administration-txed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack