Perkins v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 34

Memorandum of Opinion and Order: This Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error, hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. In accordance with that recommendation, the Court hereby awards attorney fees in the amount of $7,577.40 to plaintiff, which shall be sent to plaintiff's counsel provided no federal debts are owed. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 5/13/16. (LC,S) re 32

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Katera D. Perkins,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
Carolyn W. Colvin,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:14 CV 2213
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge George J. Limbert (Doc. 32), recommending that the Court award attorney fees in the
amount of $7,577.40. No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and
Recommendation is ACCEPTED and attorney fees in the amount of $7,577.40 shall be awarded
to plaintiff and sent to plaintiff’s counsel provided no federal debts are owed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the

1

district court reviews the case de novo. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides in
pertinent part:
The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de
novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence,
of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which
specific written objection has been made in accordance with this
rule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
As stated in the Advisory Committee Notes, “When no timely objection is filed, the court
need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” In Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the Court held, “It does not
appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge’s factual or
legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those
findings.”
DECISION
This Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error,
hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. In accordance with that
recommendation, the Court hereby awards attorney fees in the amount of $7,577.40 to plaintiff,
which shall be sent to plaintiff’s counsel provided no federal debts are owed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge
Dated: 5/13/16

2