Kerney v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

JAMES ANTHONY KERNEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-1765-JSS-LHP

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. ___________________________________/ ORDER Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), Plaintiff moves for $8,000 in attorney fees and $405 in costs and seemingly asks that payment be made directly to counsel based on an assignment executed by Plaintiff. (Dkt. 23.) Defendant does not oppose the motion. (Id. at 4.) The magistrate judge assigned to this case recommends granting the motion in part by awarding Plaintiff $8,000 in attorney fees and $405 in costs and denying the motion in any other respects. (Dkt. 24.) No party has filed objections to the recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. Upon consideration, the court adopts the recommendation in full. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations made by a magistrate judge, the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. A party must serve and file written objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of it, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and the failure to object in a timely fashion “waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions,” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. With respect to dispositive matters, the

district court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the recommendation to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A district court makes a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate’s report to which objections are filed.”). Even in the absence of a specific objection, the district

court reviews any legal conclusions de novo. Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019). Here, upon conducting a careful and complete review of the magistrate judge’s

recommendation and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court agrees with the recommendation in full. Accordingly: 1. The magistrate judge’s recommendation (Dkt. 24) is ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for attorney fees and costs (Dkt. 23) is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as explained in the recommendation. 3. Plaintiff is AWARDED $8,000 in attorney fees and $405 in costs, and accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor for $8,405. ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on July 16, 2025.

2 = S. sours — NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

-3-