John Del Simmons v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

JOHN DEL SIMMONS, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CAUSE NO. EP-22-CV-101-KC-ATB § COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL § SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, § § Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On this day, the Court considered United States Magistrate Judge Anne T. Berton’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 33. On February 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Authorization of Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (“Motion”), ECF No. 25.1 Pursuant to Paragraph 2(c) of the Court’s May 1, 2012, Standing Order, this case was referred to Judge Berton. Judge Berton filed the R&R on May 14, 2026, recommending that the Court grant the Motion. Parties have fourteen days from a service of a Report and Recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge to file written objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).2 Over fourteen days have elapsed since the R&R, and no objections have been filed. When parties do not file written objections, courts apply a “clearly erroneous, abuse of

1 The Magistrate Judge noted that “[a]lthough the motion is styled as one submitted by Plaintiff John Del Simmons, the real party in interest is Attorney Bryan Konoski, who represented Simmons before this Court on his [social security] appeal.” R&R 1. Like in the R&R, the Court will refer to the Motion as Konoski’s motion. See id. at 1 n.1.

2 Federal district courts conduct de novo review of those portions of a report and recommendation to which a party has objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge . . . shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made . . . .”). discretion and contrary to law” standard of review to a report and recommendation. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989). After reviewing the R&R, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and finds that they are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See id. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, ECF No. 33, in its entirety, and GRANTS the Motion, ECF No. 25. Attorney Bryan Konoski shall be AWARDED attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in the net amount of $12,668.50 to be paid out of Plaintiff's past-due benefits in accordance with agency policy. The case remains closed. SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 1st day of June, 2026.

IZED STATES DISTRIG# JUDGE