Seligman v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 20-CV-62161-RAR/STRAUSS JAY SELIGMAN, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. / ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 31] (“Report”), filed on March 10, 2022. The Report recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act and the Social Security Act (“Motion”) [ECF No. 30]. See Report at 1. When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). However, when no party has timely objected, “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 notes (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.”). In any event, the “[fJailure 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 (Sth 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 Defendant’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. 31] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. The Motion [ECF No. 30] is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $9,725.93, expenses in the amount of $45.00, and costs in the amount of $400.00. In accordance with Plaintiff's request, this amount must be sent directly to Plaintiff's counsel if the Government determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 10th day of March, 2022. RODOLFO A. RUIZ IT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss Page 2 of 2