Amos v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 28

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion for Attorney Fees; adopting 26 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 5/8/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
SUSAN M. AMOS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:15-cv-1912-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. 25), filed April 24, 2017; and (2) U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory
J. Kelly’s Unopposed Report and Recommendation (Doc. 26), filed April 25, 2017; and
(3) the parties’ Joint Statement in Response to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27),
filed April 27, 2017.
I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Susan Amos initiated this action seeking judicial review of a final
unfavorable determination on her claim for Social Security benefits. (See Doc. 1.) On
March 3, 2017, the Court entered a judgment in favor of Plaintiff, who is the prevailing
party in this action. (See Docs. 24; see also Doc. 23.) Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (“EAJA”), Plaintiff then filed an Uncontested Motion for
Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 25 (“Motion”)). On April 25, 2017, Magistrate Judge Kelly issued a
Report and Recommendation (“Report”), which recommended that the Court grant the
-1-

Motion to the extent that Plaintiff requests that the Court award her EAJA attorney’s fees
in the sum of $4,154.47. (See Doc. 26.) Two days later, the parties filed a Joint Statement
in Response to the Report and Recommendation, which advises that neither party objects
to the Report. (See Doc. 27.)
II.

DISCUSSION

When no party files written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations in a magistrate’s report, the district court conducts a “clear error”
review. 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.”); Garvey v. Vaugh, 993 F.2d 776, 779
n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Here, the parties have explicitly advised
the Court that they have no objections (see Doc. 27); hence, 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. Thus, the
Report is due to be accepted and adopted and made part of this Order.
III.

CONCLUSION

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

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

Recommendation (Doc. 26) is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED, and made part of this Order.
2.

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 25) is GRANTED

IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth in this Order and the Unopposed Report
-2-

and Recommendation (Doc. 26).
3.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), the Court AWARDS $4,154.47 to

Plaintiff Susan M. Amos for attorney fees in this action.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, this 8th day of May, 2017.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-