Day v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:16CV2813. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20190910a81
Visitors: 4
Filed: Sep. 09, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 09, 2019
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) to grant Plaintiff's Motion for Payment of Attorney Fees (Doc. 22). Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due August 13, 2019. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed withi
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) to grant Plaintiff's Motion for Payment of Attorney Fees (Doc. 22). Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due August 13, 2019. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within..
More
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) to grant Plaintiff's Motion for Payment of Attorney Fees (Doc. 22). Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due August 13, 2019. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after service. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). Both parties have failed to timely file any such objections. Therefore, the Court must assume that they are satisfied with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Any further review by this Court would be duplicative and an inefficient use of the Court's limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 506 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 22) and awards $19,615.75 to Plaintiff's counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Furthermore, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff's counsel to refund $5,628.78 (the amount awarded in EAJA fees (Doc. 21)) to Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
