Opinion
20-CV-62161-RAR/STRAUSS
11-07-2022
JAY SELIGMAN, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RODOLFO A. RUIZ II, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 36] (“Report”), filed on November 3, 2022. The Report recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees Under the Social Security Act [ECF No. 33] (“Motion”). Rep. at 1. Defendant does not oppose the Motion. See Mot. at 1.
When a magistrate judge's “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee's note to 1983 addition (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress's intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate[] [judge]'s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” (emphasis in original; alterations added)). In any event, the “[f]ailure to object to the magistrate [judge]'s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)).
Because the Motion is unopposed, the Court anticipates that Defendant has no objections to the Report. Thus, the Court considers it appropriate to review the Report for clear error. Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff's Motion, the Report, the factual record, the applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [ECF No. 36] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's Motion [ECF No. 33] is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $15,047.87.
DONE AND ORDERED.