Summary
holding that Avard was not entitled to paralegal fees for "filing a Memorandum in Opposition by Cm/ecf"
Summary of this case from Garverick v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.Opinion
Case No: 2:13-cv-450-FtM-38DNF
07-01-2014
DANIEL JIPSON, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER
Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. 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 Web sites, this court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. 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.
This matter comes before the Court on Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier (Doc. 40) filed on June 12, 2014. Judge Frazier recommends the Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2312(d) (Doc. 35) be granted, and attorney fees in the amount of $7,328.00 be awarded to Plaintiff, and may be paid directly to counsel if the United States Department of Treasury determines that no federal debt is owed. No objections have been 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); cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). 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 Southern 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).
The Court has made an independent review of the record and Judge Frazier's Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Frazier's findings.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Report and Recommendation (Doc. 40) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and is made a part of this Order for all purposes.
2. Plaintiff's Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2312(d) (Doc. 35) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $7,328.00 in attorney's fees and this may be paid directly to counsel if the United States Department of Treasury determines that no federal debt is owed.
3. The Clerk is directed to enter an Amended Judgment accordingly.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 1st day of July, 2014.
__________
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record