Van Ingen v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
29
ORDER. The magistrate judge's recommendation (Dkt. 28) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's unopposed application for attorney fees (Dkt. 27) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is awarded $7,504.80 under the EAJA. Defendant is not required to honor the assignment of EAJA fees directly to Plaintiff's counsel. Signed by Judge Julie S. Sneed on 1/28/2025. (AJL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
CALLAN E. VAN INGEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 6:23-cv-2046-JSS-LHP
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER
In June 2024, Plaintiff filed an unopposed application for attorney fees under
the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, seeking $7,504.80 “payable
to [Plaintiff’s] lead attorney.” (Dkt. 27 at 6; see Dkt. 27-6 (a document signed by
Plaintiff under penalty of perjury purporting to assign his entitlement to an EAJA
award to his attorney).)
In July 2024, the magistrate judge issued a report
recommending that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part. (Dkt. 28
at 7–8.) Specifically, the magistrate judge recommends that Plaintiff be awarded
$7,504.80 under the EAJA but that in light of the Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C.
§ 3727, Defendant not be required to “honor the assignment of EAJA fees directly to
[Plaintiff’s] counsel.”
(Dkt. 28 at 7–8.)
No party has filed objections to the
recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. Upon consideration, the court
adopts the recommendation in full.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations made by a magistrate judge, a district judge “may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. A party must serve and file written objections to a magistrate
judge’s recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of it, 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and the failure to object in a timely fashion “waives the right to
challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal
conclusions,” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. With respect to dispositive matters, the district judge
must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the recommendation to which a
timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States
v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A district court makes a
de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate’s report to which objections
are filed.”). Even in the absence of a specific objection, the district judge reviews any
legal conclusions de novo. Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir.
1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D.
Fla. 2019).
Here, upon conducting a careful and complete review of the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court agrees with
the recommendation in full.
Accordingly:
1. The magistrate judge’s recommendation (Dkt. 28) is ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff’s unopposed application for attorney fees (Dkt. 27) is GRANTED in
-2-
part and DENIED in part.
3. Plaintiff is awarded $7,504.80 under the EAJA.
4. Defendant is not required to honor the assignment of EAJA fees directly to
Plaintiff’s counsel.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on January 28, 2025.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
-3-
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?