Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UMNIITDEDDL ES TDAITSTERS IDCITS TORFI FCLTO CROIUDRAT TAMPA DIVISION

EUDE RIVERA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:19-cv-2337-T-60MCR

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Defendant. /

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and recommendation of Monte C. Richardson, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on November 16, 2020. (Doc. 25). Judge Richardson recommends Plaintiff’s “Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs/Expenses Pursuant to Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412” (Doc. 22) be granted. Specifically, Judge Richardson recommends that Plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,791.12, expenses in the amount of $13.60, and costs in the amount of $440.00, for a total award of $ 7,244.72. The motion was unopposed and no objection to the report and recommendation was filed. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of 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. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431- 32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (table). Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Richardson’s report and recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court adopts the report and recommendation in all respects. The Court agrees with Judge

Richardson’s detailed and well-reasoned factual findings and legal conclusions. Consequently, Plaintiff’s “Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs/Expenses Pursuant to Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412” (Doc. 22) is granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

1. The report and recommendation (Doc. 25) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. 2. Plaintiff’s “Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs/Expenses Pursuant to Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412” (Doc. 22) is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff is hereby awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,791.12, expenses in

the amount of $13.60, and costs in the amount of $440.00, for a total award of $7,244.72. 4. The Commissioner is directed to determine whether Plaintiff owes a debt to the government. If the United States Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe such a debt, the government will accept Plaintiffs assignment of EAJA fees and pay the fees directly to Plaintiffs counsel. Otherwise, the award is payable directly to Plaintiff. 5. The Clerk is directed to enter an amended final judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against the Commissioner of Social Security that includes the award of attorney’s fees and costs in this case, as set forth herein. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 11th day of January, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3