ORDER

ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH, District Judge.

Currently before the undersigned is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed. (Doc. 25). By the R&R, Judge Sneed recommends Plaintiff Wilfredo DeJesus's Unopposed Motion for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("Motion"), (Doc. 21), be granted, (Doc. 25). No party filed written objections to the R&R, and the time for doing so has elapsed.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act ("Act"), Congress vested Article III judges with the power to "designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court," subject to various exceptions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Act further vests magistrate judges with authority to submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition by an Article III judge. Id. § 636(b)(1)(B). "Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to [the magistrate judge's] proposed findings and recommendations." Id. § 636(b)(1). On review, the district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to which objection is made." Id. When no timely and specific objections are filed, caselaw indicates the district judge should review the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations using a clearly erroneous standard. See Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc., 817 F.Supp. 1558, 1562 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (Kovachevich, J.).

After careful consideration of the R&R, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the undersigned finds the R&R is well-reasoned, correct, and not clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

ORDERED.