Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION RICHARD MICHAEL MILLER, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:22-cv-438-VMC-JBT COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. _______________________________/ ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 33), entered on April 13, 2023, recommending that Plaintiff’s Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (Doc. # 26) be granted in part and denied in part. No objections have been filed, and the time for filing objections has lapsed. The Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation, grants the Motion in part, and awards Plaintiff $7,520.89 in attorney’s fees. Discussion 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 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 recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by the magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. 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). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 33) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) Plaintiff’s Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (Doc. # 26) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (3) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $7,520.89 in attorney’s fees. (4) The Commissioner will determine whether Plaintiff owes a debt to the government. If the United States Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe such a debt, the government will accept Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees and pay the fees directly to Plaintiff’s counsel. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 28th day of April, 2023. VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ*COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE