DeJesus v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION WILFREDO DEJESUS, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 8:18-cv-2058-EAK-ISS COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ___Defendant ORDER Currently before the undersigned is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed. (Doc. 25). By the R&R, Judge Sneed recommends Plaintiff Wilfredo DeJesus’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“Motion”), (Doc. 21), be granted, (Doc. 25). No party filed written objections to the R&R, and the time for doing so has elapsed. Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), Congress vested Article III judges with the power to “designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court,” subject to various exceptions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Act further vests magistrate judges with authority to submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition by an Article III judge. Jd. § 636(b)(1)(B). “Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to [the magistrate judge’s] proposed findings and recommendations.” Jd. § 636(b)(1). On review, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” /d. When no timely and specific objections are filed, caselaw indicates the district judge should review the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations using a clearly erroneous standard. See Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc., 817 F. Supp. 1558, 1562 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (Kovachevich, J.). After careful consideration of the R&R, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the undersigned finds the R&R is well-reasoned, correct, and not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, itis ORDERED as follows: 1. Judge Sneed’s R&R, (Doc. 25), is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. 2. Plaintiffs Motion, (Doc. 21), is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,420.00 and costs in the amount of $400.00. . ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 12th day of December, 2019. ST IZ ABE, Pt UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. Copies furnished to: Counsel/Parties of Record