Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

W.D. Texas

Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

District Court, W.D. Texas·Decided May 2, 2025·No. 3:22-cv-00144·Unknown

Opinion

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

MARIA RAMIREZ, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CAUSE NO. EP-22-CV-144-KC-ATB § KILOLO KIJAKAZI, § ACTING COMMISSIONER OF § SOCIAL SECURITY § ADMINISTRATION, § § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On this day, the Court considered United Staes Magistrate Judge Anne T. Berton’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 24. Pursuant to Paragraph 2(c) of the Court’s May 1, 2012, Standing Order, this case was referred to then-Magistrate Judge Leon Schydlower on May 3, 2022, and subsequently to Magistrate Judge Berton on February 27, 2025. Magistrate Judge Berton filed the R&R on April 17, 2025, recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff Maria Ramirez’s Motion for Authorization of Attorney Fees (“Motion”), ECF No. 23. 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).1 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 discretion and contrary to law” standard of review to a report and recommendation. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). After reviewing the R&R, the Court

1 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 . . . .”). agrees with Magistrate Judge Berton’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and finds that they are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, ECF No. 24, in its entirety, and ORDERS that Plaintiff Maria Ramirez’s Motion for Authorization of Attorney Fees, ECF No. 23, is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ramirez’s counsel, Bryan Konoski, is AWARDED $8,267.43 in attorney’s fees to be certified for payment out of Ramirez’s past-due benefits held by the Commissioner for such purposes. SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 2nd day of May, 2025.

MNds UNIFED STATES DISTRICT JWPGE

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

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

MARIA RAMIREZ, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CAUSE NO. EP-22-CV-144-KC-ATB § KILOLO KIJAKAZI, § ACTING COMMISSIONER OF § SOCIAL SECURITY § ADMINISTRATION, § § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On this day, the Court considered United Staes Magistrate Judge Anne T. Berton’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 24. Pursuant to Paragraph 2(c) of the Court’s May 1, 2012, Standing Order, this case was referred to then-Magistrate Judge Leon Schydlower on May 3, 2022, and subsequently to Magistrate Judge Berton on February 27, 2025. Magistrate Judge Berton filed the R&R on April 17, 2025, recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff Maria Ramirez’s Motion for Authorization of Attorney Fees (“Motion”), ECF No. 23. 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).1 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 discretion and contrary to law” standard of review to a report and recommendation. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). After reviewing the R&R, the Court

1 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 . . . .”). agrees with Magistrate Judge Berton’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and finds that they are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, ECF No. 24, in its entirety, and ORDERS that Plaintiff Maria Ramirez’s Motion for Authorization of Attorney Fees, ECF No. 23, is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ramirez’s counsel, Bryan Konoski, is AWARDED $8,267.43 in attorney’s fees to be certified for payment out of Ramirez’s past-due benefits held by the Commissioner for such purposes. SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 2nd day of May, 2025.

MNds UNIFED STATES DISTRICT JWPGE

Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (W.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related