Jipson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 41

ORDER Accepting and Adopting 40 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and is made a part of this Order for all purposes re 35 MOTION for Attorney Fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2312(d) filed by Daniel Jipson. Plaintiff's Petition for EAJA Fees Pu rsuant 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. The Clerk is directed to enter an Amended Judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 7/1/2014. (laf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DANIEL JIPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:13-cv-450-FtM-38DNF

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER1
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,

1

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.

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.

Copies: All Parties of Record

2