Fowler v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 37

ORDER adopting 36 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 33 Unopposed MOTION for Attorney Fees (pursuant to EAJA) filed by Melissa Fowler. The Report and Recommendation 36 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein. P laintiff Melissa Fowler's Unopposed Application for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act 33 is GRANTED. a. Plaintiff Melissa Fowler is awarded $15,000.00 in attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U. S.C. § 2412(d); and b.If the United States Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff owes no federal debt, the Government accept Plaintiff's assignment of Equal Access to Justice Act fees and pay fees directly to Plaintiff's counsel. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter an Amended Judgment and close the file. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 8/3/2018. (LMF)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION MELISSA FOWLER, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:16-cv-665-FtM-38CM COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. / ORDER1 This matter comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 36) on Plaintiff Melissa Fowler’s Unopposed Application for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 33). Judge Mirando recommends that the Application be granted. (Doc. 36). No party has objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the period to do so has lapsed. This matter is ripe for review. 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). Absent specific objections, there is no requirement that a 1 Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. 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 websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. 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. 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). After independently examining the file and on consideration of Judge Mirando’s findings and recommendation, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 36) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein. 2. Plaintiff Melissa Fowler’s Unopposed Application for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 33) is GRANTED. a. Plaintiff Melissa Fowler is awarded $15,000.00 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); and b. If the United States Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff owes no federal debt, the Government accept Plaintiff’s assignment of Equal Access to Justice Act fees and pay fees directly to Plaintiff’s counsel. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter an Amended Judgment and close the file. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 3rd day of August 2018. Copies: All Parties of Record 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?