Wood, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER granting 25 Motion for Attorney Fees; adopting 28 Report and Recommendations.The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with the attached order. Signed by Judge William F. Jung on 9/7/2021. (CCB)
Case 8:20-cv-02143-WFJ-SPF Document 29 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID 4444
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
RICHARD B. WOOD, JR.,
CASE NO. 8:20-cv-2143-WFJ-SPF
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s timely amended unopposed motion for
attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) of the Equal Access to Justice Act
(“EAJA”) with supporting documents (Dkt. 25) and the well-reasoned report
issued by United States Magistrate Judge Flynn recommending fees be granted
(Dkt. 28). Plaintiff represents that the Commissioner has no objections. Dkt. 25-2.
After an independent review of the file, the Court adopts, affirms, and approves in
all respects the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 28), which is made a part of this
Order for all purposes.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
1. The amended uncontested motion for EAJA fees (Dkt. 25) is granted.
Case 8:20-cv-02143-WFJ-SPF Document 29 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID 4445
2. Plaintiff, as the prevailing party, is awarded appropriate and
reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $7,563.06. If the United States
Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then
pursuant to Plaintiff’s assignment of the EAJA fees to Plaintiff’s attorney (Dkt. 254) and Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), the fees may be paid directly to
3. The Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment for attorney’s fees
($7,563.06) and costs ($400) in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the total
amount of $7,963.06.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on September 7, 2021.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of record
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?