ORDER

ROY B. DALTON, JR., District Judge.

In this social security appeal, Plaintiff sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security's (the "Commissioner") decision to deny her disability benefits. (See Doc. 1.) On February 9, 2018, the Court reversed the Commissioner's final decision and remanded the action for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 36.) The Court then entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff. (Doc. 37.)

As the prevailing party, Plaintiff now: (1) seeks an award for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA") in the amount of $4,363.43; and (2) requests that, if the U.S. Department of Treasury determines that she does not owe a debt to the U.S. Government, the Commissioner honor Plaintiff's assignment of the EAJA fees and pay those fees directly to his counsel.1(Doc. 38 ("Fees Motion").) On referral, U.S. Magistrate Judge James R. Klindt recommends that the Court grant the Fees Motion in part. (Doc. 39 ("R&R").)

In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Klindt concludes that: (1) Plaintiff is entitled to the full amount of the requested EAJA fees; and (2) the hours worked and the hourly rate underlying the award are reasonable in light of a cost of living adjustment. (Id. at 2.) Magistrate Judge Klindt, however, recommends that the Court deny the Fees Motion as to Plaintiff's request to pay the EAJA fees directly to her counsel and notes that the decision of whether to honor the Assignment should be left to the Commissioner's discretion. (Id. at 2-3.)

No party objected to the R&R, and the time for doing so has now passed. Absent objections, the Court has examined the R&R only for clear error. See Wiand v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 8:12-cv-557-T-27EAJ, 2016 WL 355490, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2016); see also Marcort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Finding no clear error, the Court concludes that the R&R is due to be adopted in its entirety.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

DONE AND ORDERED.