S.A.B. v. Commissioner of Social Security

M.D. Georgia

S.A.B. v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedJanuary 9, 2026

Docket7:23-cv-00005

StatusUnknown

This text of S.A.B. v. Commissioner of Social Security (S.A.B. v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

S.A.B. v. Commissioner of Social Security, (M.D. Ga. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION

S.A.B., : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO: : 7:23-cv-5–WLS-ALS

: COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL : SECURITY, :

: Defendant. : ___________________________________ ORDER Before the Court is the Recommendation (Doc. 26) of United States Magistrate Judge Alfreda L. Sheppard, filed June 25, 2025. Therein, Judge Sheppard recommends that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Under the Social Security Act 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Doc. 23) (“SSA Fee Motion”) be granted and that Plaintiff’s counsel, George C. Piemonte, be awarded fees in the amount of $8,775.48. After deduction of fees of $4,071.23 previously awarded to Mr. Piemonte under the Equal Access to Justice Act (see Docs. 21, 22), Judge Sheppard recommends that Mr. Piemonte be authorized to recover $4,704.25 out of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits. Judge Sheppard notified the parties that they had fourteen days within which to file an objection to the Recommendation. Neither party did so. (See Doc. 26 at 4–5 & Docket). Thus, the Court reviews the Recommendation for clear error.1 Upon full review and consideration of the record, and finding no clear error, the Court finds that Judge Sheppard’s Recommendation should be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED, ADOPTED, and made the Order of this Court for the reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein.

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) provides that “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); FED. R. CIV. P. 72. If no timely objections are filed, the court considers the recommendation for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Most circuits agree that in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Under the Social Security Act 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Doc. 23) is GRANTED. The Court finds that a reasonable attorney fee for Plaintiff’s counsel, George C. Piemonte, for representation in this matter is $8,775.48. Plaintiff’s counsel was previously awarded $4,071.23 in fees which are to be credited to Plaintiff. Therefore, the Commissioner is ORDERED to pay to George C. Piemonte the net amount of $4,704.25 out of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits.

SO ORDERED, this 9th day of January 2026.

/s/W. Louis Sands W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION

S.A.B., : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO: : 7:23-cv-5–WLS-ALS

: COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL : SECURITY, :

: Defendant. : ___________________________________ ORDER Before the Court is the Recommendation (Doc. 26) of United States Magistrate Judge Alfreda L. Sheppard, filed June 25, 2025. Therein, Judge Sheppard recommends that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Under the Social Security Act 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Doc. 23) (“SSA Fee Motion”) be granted and that Plaintiff’s counsel, George C. Piemonte, be awarded fees in the amount of $8,775.48. After deduction of fees of $4,071.23 previously awarded to Mr. Piemonte under the Equal Access to Justice Act (see Docs. 21, 22), Judge Sheppard recommends that Mr. Piemonte be authorized to recover $4,704.25 out of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits. Judge Sheppard notified the parties that they had fourteen days within which to file an objection to the Recommendation. Neither party did so. (See Doc. 26 at 4–5 & Docket). Thus, the Court reviews the Recommendation for clear error.1 Upon full review and consideration of the record, and finding no clear error, the Court finds that Judge Sheppard’s Recommendation should be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED, ADOPTED, and made the Order of this Court for the reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein.

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) provides that “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); FED. R. CIV. P. 72. If no timely objections are filed, the court considers the recommendation for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Most circuits agree that in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Under the Social Security Act 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Doc. 23) is GRANTED. The Court finds that a reasonable attorney fee for Plaintiff’s counsel, George C. Piemonte, for representation in this matter is $8,775.48. Plaintiff’s counsel was previously awarded $4,071.23 in fees which are to be credited to Plaintiff. Therefore, the Commissioner is ORDERED to pay to George C. Piemonte the net amount of $4,704.25 out of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits.

SO ORDERED, this 9th day of January 2026.

/s/W. Louis Sands W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

S.A.B. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sab-v-commissioner-of-social-security-gamd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack