Reyes v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

ALEXIS REYES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:22-cv-48-MSS-SPF

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Unopposed Motion Request for Authorization to Charge a Reasonable Fee, (Dkt. 23). On April 7, 2025, Judge Sean P. Flynn issued a Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 24), which recommended Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Request for Authorization to Charge a Reasonable Fee under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Dkt. 23) be granted. Id. In the Report and Recommendation Judge Flynn advised that Plaintiff’s counsel be awarded $10,035.62 in attorney’s fees. Id. Neither Party has filed a written objection to the report and recommendation. Upon consideration of all relevant filings, case law, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Request for Authorization to Charge a Reasonable Fee and AWARDS Plaintiff’s Counsel $10,035.62 in attorney’s fees. In the Eleventh Circuit, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v.

Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507,

512 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). Absent specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion the Report and

Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 24), is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order. 2. Plaintiffs Counsel’s Unopposed Request for Authorization to Charge a Reasonable Fee under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Dkt. 23) be GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff's Counsel be awarded $10,035.62 in attorney’s fees; and 4, The Clerk of the Court enter judgment accordingly. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 28th day of April 2025.

Copies furnished to: ae } Counsel of Record MARYS SOREN Any Unrepresented Person UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE