Casanas v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: February 20, 2025
• Docket: 1:22-cv-21108
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-21108-KMM

IRAN CASANAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security,1

Defendant. /

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff Iran Casanas’s (“Plaintiff”) Petition for Attorney Fees. (“Motion” or “Mot.”) (ECF No. 31). Therein, Plaintiff requests $12,757.31 in attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (the “EAJA”). Id. at 1. Following Defendant’s Response and Plaintiff’s Reply to the Motion, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Filing of Supplemental Declaration of Sarah H. Bohr. (ECF No. 37). Therein, Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees for an additional six hours of work. Id. at 2. Accordingly, in total, Plaintiff seeks $14,213.99. See id.; Mot. The Motion was referred to the Honorable Lauren F. Louis, United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 32) who issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 38), recommending that the Motion be GRANTED, and Plaintiff be awarded $14,213.99

1 Martin O’Malley became Commissioner of Social Security on December 20, 2023. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Martin O’Malley is substituted for Kilolo Kijakazi as the Defendant in this suit. in attorney’s fees. No objections to the R&R were filed, and the time to do so has now passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. The Court 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); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id. Yet when a party has not properly objected

to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))). In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends that: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion be granted; and (2) Plaintiff should be awarded $14,213.99 in reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA. See generally R&R. This Court agrees.

Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the R&R (ECF No. 38) is ADOPTED. Plaintiffs Petition for Attorney Fees is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $14,213.99 in attorney’s fees. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 19th day of February, 2025.

K. MICHAEL MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record