Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

WANDA SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:17-cv-90-FtM-38UAM

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. / ORDER1 Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 46), recommending that Plaintiff’s Supplemental Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2312(d) (Doc. 43) be granted in part and denied in part. No party has objected to the R&R, and the period to do so has lapsed. This matter is ripe for review. 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

1 Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court. district judge review factual findings de novo, and the court may accept, reject or modify the findings in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).

Here, Smith seeks $1,139.75 in attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), on top of the $6,997.00 already awarded. After considering the Commissioner’s objections, Judge Mizell found 2.4 hours of compensable work in 2018 and 1.3 hours of compensable work in 2019, and he recommends an hourly rate of $200 for 2018 and $205 for 2019, for a total award of $745.50. After conducting an independent examination of the file and on consideration of Judge Mizell’s findings and recommendations, the Court accepts and adopts the R&R. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 46) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the findings are incorporated herein. (2) Plaintiff Wanda Smith’s Supplemental Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2312(d) (Doc. 43) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. a. Plaintiff Wanda Smith is awarded $746.50 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); and b. If the United States Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff Wanda Smith does not owe a federal debt, the Government may pay these fees, costs, and expenses directly to Plaintiff’s counsel. (3) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to amend the judgment to include an additional $746.50 attorney’s fee award in favor of Plaintiff. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 4th day of September, 2019.

Lhe hlatrrthe 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record