Laventure v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 24

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 21 Motion for Attorney Fees; adopting 23 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 3/8/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
YVONNE LAVENTURE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:15-cv-1883-Orl-37GJK

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the following: (1) Plaintiff’s Uncontested Petition
for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 21 (“Motion”)), filed December 15, 2016; and (2) U.S. Magistrate
Judge Gregory J. Kelly’s Unopposed Report and Recommendation that the Motion be
Granted in Part and Denied in Part (Doc. 23 (“Report”)), filed February 7, 2017.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 6, 2015, Plaintiff Yvonne Laventure initiated this action seeking
judicial review of a final unfavorable determination on her claim for payments of
Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability benefits (“Administrative
Determination”). (See Doc. 1.) One year later, the Court entered an Order reversing the
Administrative Determination and remanding the matter to the Social Security
Administration (“SSA”) for further proceedings. (See Doc. 19.) Seeking her attorney fees
under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (“EAJA”), Plaintiff then filed
her Motion (Doc. 21), which was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly. On
-1-

February 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Kelly issued the Report recommending that the Court
grant the Motion to the extent that Plaintiff requests that $5,479.60 in EAJA fees be
awarded to her. (See Doc. 23.) The deadline for filing objections to the Report—February
24, 2017—has now passed, and no objections have been filed.
II. DISCUSSION
When a party files written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations in a magistrate’s report, the district court must make a de novo
determination of the portions of the report to which an objection is made. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). But when the parties do not file specific objections to the
magistrate’s factual findings, the district court need not conduct a de novo review. See
Garvey v. Vaugh, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). Rather, the district court reviews
an unopposed report and recommendation for clear error. See Marcort v. Prem, Inc.,
208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Most circuits agree that in the absence of a timely
filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.”)
Because the parties have filed no objections to the Report and the time to do so has
passed, the Court has reviewed the Report for clear error. In doing so, the Court finds
that the findings and recommendations set forth in the thoughtful Report are supported
and warranted by the record. Hence the Report is due to be accepted and adopted and
made part of this Order.

-2-

II.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly’s Unopposed Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 23) is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED, and made part of this Order.
2.

Plaintiff’s Uncontested Petition for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 21) is GRANTED

IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth in this Order and the Unopposed Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 23).
3.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), the Court AWARDS $5,479.60 to

Plaintiff Yvonne Laventure for her attorney fees expended in this action.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, this 8th day of March, 2017.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-