Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

JORGE TORRES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 6:23-cv-1691-RBD-RMN

COMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. ____________________________________

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Jorge Torres’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 47). In this Social Security disability benefits appeal, the Court reversed Defendant Commissioner’s decision and awarded Plaintiff benefits. (Docs. 31, 32.) Plaintiff then moved for an award of attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), and Defendant failed to timely respond. (Doc. 34.) On referral, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert M. Norway entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) submitting that the Court should award Plaintiff the full amount of fees and costs he requested. (Doc. 35.) After the R&R had been entered, Defendant requested an extension of time to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion, which Judge Norway denied. (Docs. 36, 39.) But Defendant did timely object to the R&R. (Doc. 40.) Plaintiff responded in support of the R&R and requested an award of additional fees incurred since the entry of the R&R.

(Doc. 41.) The Court overruled Defendant’s objection, adopted the R&R, and awarded Plaintiff the amount of fees originally requested in his motion. (Doc. 46.) The Court also directed Plaintiff to file a new motion for the additional fees

incurred while litigating his first motion for fees. (Id. at 3–4.) Plaintiff did so (Doc. 47), and on referral Judge Norway entered an R&R stating that the Court should award additional EAJA fees of $3,211.14 to Plaintiff as the prevailing party (Doc. 50). The time has passed and there were no objections, so the Court examines

the R&R for clear error only. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Finding none, the R&R is due to be adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The instant R&R (Doc. 50) is ADOPTED AND CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order in its entirety. 2. Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 47) is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff,

as a prevailing party, is AWARDED an additional $3,211.14 of EAJA attorney’s fees and costs. The total sum of EAJA fees awarded to Plaintiff in this case is $30,930.73. The remainder of Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

3. The file is to remain closed. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on March 14, 2025.

i ROY B. DALTON, United States District Judge