Canales v. Saul

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT vo SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION DELIA RIOS CANALES, § Plaintiff, V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00168 ANDREW SAUL, Defendant. : ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 34). The M&R recommends that the Court grant the motion for attorney’s fees, (D.E. 31), filed by Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Ronald D. Honig. (D.E. 34, p. 1-2, 4). The M&R further recommends that Honig be ordered to refund his client the $5,105.68 award he previously received under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Jd. at 4; see also (D.E. 30) (granting Mr. Honig’s motion for attorney’s fees and expenses and awarding him $5,105.68). The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Badaiki v. Schlumberger Holdings Corp., 512 F. Supp. 3d 741, 743-44 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (Eskridge, J.). Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 34). Accordingly, the Court

1/2

GRANTS Mr. Honig’s motion for attorney’s fees and awards $16,723.75 as reasonable attorney’s fees in this case. (D.E. 31). The Court further ORDERS Mr. Honig to refund Plaintiff the $5,105.68 award he received under the Equal Access to Justice Act. See (D.E. 30). SO ORDERED.

DA MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas April 19, 2023

2/2