The opinion
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LONG ISLAND OFFICE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X For Online Publication Only
WILLIAM COSTIGAN,
Plaintiff,
-against- ORDER
17-CV-1592 (JMA) (SIL)
ANDREW SAUL,
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
AZRACK, United States District Judge:
On April 14, 2020, plaintiff William Costigan (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for attorneys’
fees. (ECF No. 13.) On April 15, 2020, Judge Spatt referred Plaintiff’s motion to Magistrate
Judge Locke for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (ECF No. 16.) On July 13, 2020, this
case was reassigned to this Court. On November 12, 2020, Judge Locke issued an R&R
recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees be granted in part and denied in part as
follows: Plaintiff should be granted leave to file an amended motion (as a new motion) with
accompanying supporting papers as appropriate, after the Social Security Administration renders
its determination on his pending fee petition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 406(a) for the work Plaintiff’s
counsel performed at the administrative level. Plaintiff’s new amended motion should be filed
consistent with this Court’s individual rules. (Electronic Order, 11/12/20.)
To date, no objections have been filed to the R&R, and the time for filing such objections
has passed. Having conducted a review of the full record and the applicable law, I adopt Judge
Locke’s R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the Court.
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court must “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or . . . recommendations to which
objection[s][are] made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Brown v. Ebert, No. 05–CV–5579,
---------------
2006 WL 3851152, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2006). 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)(1)(C). Those portions of a report and recommendation to which there is no specific
reasoned objection are reviewed for clear error. See Pall Corp. v. Entegris, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 48,
51 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).
I have undertaken a review of the record and the R&R, and finding no clear error, I adopt
Judge Locke’s R&R. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees is granted in part and
denied in part. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended motion (as a new motion), with
accompanying supporting papers as appropriate, after the Social Security Administration renders
its determination on his pending fee petition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 406(a) for the work Plaintiff’s
counsel performed at the administrative level. Plaintiff’s new amended motion should be filed
consistent with this Court’s individual rules.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 11, 2020
Central Islip, New York
/s/ (JMA)
JOAN M. AZRACK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE