Lott v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 5/4/16. (tab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
STEVEN BERRY LOTT
V.

PLAINTIFF
NO. 4:14-CV-00028-DMB-SAA

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY

DEFENDANT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On May 13, 2014, this Court entered an order granting Plaintiff’s motion to remand this
matter pursuant to sentence six of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc. #8. On
November 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for authorization of attorney’s fees, representing:
After remand by this Court, an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a favorable
decision on July 24, 2015 finding the plaintiff disabled as of January 2011. The
social security [sic] has issued a Notice of Award finding that the plaintiff was
due past due benefits.
Doc. #9 at ¶ 2. The motion seeks a fee authorization in the amount of $2,623.25. Id. at ¶ 8.
Two weeks later, on November 16, 2015, Defendant filed a response “declin[ing] to
assert a position on the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s request.” Doc. #10 at 6. On March 28,
2016, following a referral of this motion, United States Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander
issued a Report and Recommendation finding “that plaintiff’s request is eminently reasonable for
the services rendered” and recommending “that the motion for … fees be granted.” Doc. #11 at
2. The Report and Recommendation directed that written objections be filed within fourteen
days and warned that “failure to file written objections … bars [a] party from … entitlement to
de novo review by a district judge proposed findings and recommendations.” Id. at 3.
More than fourteen days have passed since the issuance of the Report and
Recommendation and no party has filed objections to Judge Alexander’s recommendations.

Accordingly, this Court’s review of the Report and Recommendation is limited to plain error.
See Molina-Uribe v. United States, No. B:97-97, 2009 WL 3535498, at *15 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 10,
2009) (“In the absence of plain error, a party’s failure to object timely to a Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation waives any right to further judicial review of that decision.”)
(citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1997)). The
Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and has found no plain error.
Therefore, the Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the
opinion of the Court. Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees [9] is GRANTED. Defendant is
directed to disburse $2,623.25 in attorney’s fees to Plaintiff’s counsel.
SO ORDERED, this 4th day of May, 2016.

/s/ Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2