Shuwonder M. Winters v. Commissioner of Social Security

N.D. Mississippi

Shuwonder M. Winters v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedMarch 27, 2026

Docket4:25-cv-00100

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Shuwonder M. Winters v. Commissioner of Social Security, (N.D. Miss. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION

SHUWONDER M. WINTERS PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 4:25-CV-100-DMB-JMV

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY DEFENDANT

ORDER

On March 10, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden issued a report (“R&R”) recommending that Winters’ unopposed motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”)1 be granted in part and denied in part. Doc. #21. The R&R warned that “[a] party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s [R&R] within (14) fourteen days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court.” Id. at PageID 633. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report … to which objection is made.” “[P]lain error review applies where, as here, ‘a party did not object to a magistrate judge’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, or recommendation to the district court’ despite being ‘served with notice of the consequences of failing to object.’” Ortiz v. City of S.A. Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States ex rel. Steury v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 735 F.3d 202, 205 n.2 (5th Cir. 2013)). “[W]here there is no objection, the Court need only determine whether the [R&R] is clearly

1 Doc. #18. erroneous or contrary to law.” United States v. Alaniz, 278 F. Supp. 3d 944, 948 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (citing United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989)). Because the Court reviewed the R&R for plain error and concludes the R&R is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the R&R [21] is ADOPTED as the order of this Court.

Winters’ motion for EAJA attorneys’ fees [18] is GRANTED in Part and DENIED in Part. The motion is DENIED as to Winters’ request that the fees awarded be made payable to her counsel. The motion is GRANTED in all other respects. Winters is awarded $5,925.83 in attorney fees under the EAJA. Such fees are to be made payable to Winters and sent in care of her attorney to her attorney’s address. SO ORDERED, this 27th day of March, 2026. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION

SHUWONDER M. WINTERS PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 4:25-CV-100-DMB-JMV

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY DEFENDANT

ORDER

On March 10, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden issued a report (“R&R”) recommending that Winters’ unopposed motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”)1 be granted in part and denied in part. Doc. #21. The R&R warned that “[a] party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s [R&R] within (14) fourteen days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court.” Id. at PageID 633. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report … to which objection is made.” “[P]lain error review applies where, as here, ‘a party did not object to a magistrate judge’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, or recommendation to the district court’ despite being ‘served with notice of the consequences of failing to object.’” Ortiz v. City of S.A. Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States ex rel. Steury v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 735 F.3d 202, 205 n.2 (5th Cir. 2013)). “[W]here there is no objection, the Court need only determine whether the [R&R] is clearly

1 Doc. #18. erroneous or contrary to law.” United States v. Alaniz, 278 F. Supp. 3d 944, 948 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (citing United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989)). Because the Court reviewed the R&R for plain error and concludes the R&R is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the R&R [21] is ADOPTED as the order of this Court.

Winters’ motion for EAJA attorneys’ fees [18] is GRANTED in Part and DENIED in Part. The motion is DENIED as to Winters’ request that the fees awarded be made payable to her counsel. The motion is GRANTED in all other respects. Winters is awarded $5,925.83 in attorney fees under the EAJA. Such fees are to be made payable to Winters and sent in care of her attorney to her attorney’s address. SO ORDERED, this 27th day of March, 2026. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Shuwonder M. Winters v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shuwonder-m-winters-v-commissioner-of-social-security-msnd-2026.

Opinion

V. NO. 4:25-CV-100-DMB-JMV

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack