Flores v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

N.D. Texas

Flores v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

DecidedJanuary 7, 2022

Docket1:20-cv-00126

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Flores v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, (N.D. Tex. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ABILENE DIVISION JEANETTE F., Plaintiff, v. No. 1:20-CV-126-H-BU KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE United States Magistrate Judge John R. Parker made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation (FCR) regarding Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act on November 9, 2021. See Dkt. No. 31. Judge Parker recommended that the Court grant the Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Dkt. No. 30). Dkt. No. 31 at 2. Where no specific objections are filed within 14 days after a party is served with a

copy, the Court must review the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation only for plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 975 F.3d 488, 502 (Sth Cir. 2020). Neither party has filed an objection within the 14-day period. The Court has examined the record and reviewed the FCR for plain error. Finding none, the Court accepts and adopts the FCR (Dkt. No. 31). Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion

for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Dkt. No. 30) is granted, and the Court awards plaintiff $6,923.44 in attorneys’ fees. So ordered on January t poe: Chuo (U JAME$ WESLEY HENDRIX UNIVED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ABILENE DIVISION JEANETTE F., Plaintiff, v. No. 1:20-CV-126-H-BU KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE United States Magistrate Judge John R. Parker made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation (FCR) regarding Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act on November 9, 2021. See Dkt. No. 31. Judge Parker recommended that the Court grant the Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Dkt. No. 30). Dkt. No. 31 at 2. Where no specific objections are filed within 14 days after a party is served with a

copy, the Court must review the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation only for plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 975 F.3d 488, 502 (Sth Cir. 2020). Neither party has filed an objection within the 14-day period. The Court has examined the record and reviewed the FCR for plain error. Finding none, the Court accepts and adopts the FCR (Dkt. No. 31). Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion

for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Dkt. No. 30) is granted, and the Court awards plaintiff $6,923.44 in attorneys’ fees. So ordered on January t poe: Chuo (U JAME$ WESLEY HENDRIX UNIVED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Flores v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flores-v-commissioner-social-security-administration-txnd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack