Tibbetts v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 28

ORDERED: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order. Plaintiff's Unopposed Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (Doc. 24) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in par t. Plaintiff is AWARDED $8,294.00 in attorney's fees. If the United States Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, the Government may exercise its discretion in determining whether the fees should be paid directly to Plaintiff's counsel. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff for $8,294.00 in attorney's fees. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 5/10/2022. (AEH)

Case 2:20-cv-00872-SPC-MRM Document 28 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1269

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
RHONDA LYNN TIBBETTS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 2:20-cv-872-SPC-MRM

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy’s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Petition for
EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (Doc. 24).

Judge McCoy

recommends granting in part and denying in part the Motion. Neither party
objected, so the 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, in whole or
in part,” the magistrate judge’s R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence
of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the

Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using
hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties
or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The
Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed
hyperlink does not affect this Order.
1

Case 2:20-cv-00872-SPC-MRM Document 28 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1270

R&R de novo. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993).
Instead, when parties don’t object, a district court need only correct plain error
as demanded by the interests of justice. See, e.g., Symonette v. V.A. Leasing
Corp., 648 F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
150-52 (1985). Plain error exists if (1) “an error occurred”; (2) “the error was
plain”; (3) “it affected substantial rights”; and (4) “not correcting the error
would seriously affect the fairness of the judicial proceedings.”

Farley v.

Nationwide Mut. Ins., 197 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999).
After examining the file independently and upon considering Judge
McCoy’s findings and recommendations, the Court accepts and adopts the
R&R.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order.
2. Plaintiff’s Unopposed Petition for EAJA Fees Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2412(d) (Doc. 24) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
a. Plaintiff is AWARDED $8,294.00 in attorney’s fees.
b. If the United States Department of Treasury determines
that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, the Government

2

Case 2:20-cv-00872-SPC-MRM Document 28 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 1271

may exercise its discretion in determining whether the fees
should be paid directly to Plaintiff’s counsel.
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff for
$8,294.00 in attorney’s fees.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on May 10, 2022.

Copies: All Parties of Record

3