Filed: Jun. 11, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 11, 2013
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. 51; Amended Report), entered by the Honorable Joel B. Toomey, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 9, 2013. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Toomey recommends that the Application for Attorney's Fees and Costs Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA Application") (Doc. 37) be granted and the Amended Motion for Approval of Undersigned Counsel's Contingency Fee
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. 51; Amended Report), entered by the Honorable Joel B. Toomey, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 9, 2013. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Toomey recommends that the Application for Attorney's Fees and Costs Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA Application") (Doc. 37) be granted and the Amended Motion for Approval of Undersigned Counsel's Contingency Fee ..
More
ORDER
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. 51; Amended Report), entered by the Honorable Joel B. Toomey, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 9, 2013. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Toomey recommends that the Application for Attorney's Fees and Costs Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA Application") (Doc. 37) be granted and the Amended Motion for Approval of Undersigned Counsel's Contingency Fee Contract with Plaintiff Tucker, Which Provides for a Fee of 25 Percent of Plaintiff Tucker's Past Due Benefits; for an Award of Attorney's Fees Equal to 25 Percent of Plaintiff Tucker's Past Due Benefits Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1); Less Any EAJA and 406(a) Attorney Fees Paid to or Expected by Undersigned Counsel and, for a 14-Day Extension of Time Within Which to Inform the Court Whether or Not the Defendant Objects to This Fee ("Amended Motion") (Doc. 40) be granted in part to the extent that Plaintiff's attorney be awarded the sum of $4,428.47 for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). See Amended Report at 3. As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed to the Magistrate Judge's Amended Report.
The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).
Upon review of the matter and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Amended Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. 51) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. Plaintiff's EAJA Application (Doc. 37) is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff's Original Motion for Approval of Undersigned Counsel's Contingency Fee Contract (Doc. 38) is TERMINATED.
4. Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Approval of Undersigned Counsel's Contingency Fee Contract (Doc. 40) is GRANTED in part, to the extent that Plaintiff's Counsel, N. Albert Bacharach, Jr., Esq., is awarded $4,428.47 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), which shall be paid from the past-due benefits awarded to Plaintiff.
5. The Commissioner is directed to pay N. Albert Bacharach, Jr., Esq. the sum of $4,428.47 from the past-due benefits withheld, and to pay Plaintiff the sum of $3,042.78.
6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED.
