# Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security

> District Court, M.D. Florida · October 18, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10643316

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** October 18, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10643316

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

DARLENE A. BROWN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:21-cv-1221-MMH-MCR

COMMISSIONER OF
THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.
_________________________________/

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C.
Richardson’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 23; Report), entered on
October 1, 2024. In the Report, Judge Richardson recommends that the
Uncontested Motion & Brief for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)
(Dkt. No. 22) be granted. See Report at 1, 6. No objections to the Report have
been filed, and the time for doing so has passed.
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).
Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court “must
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to.” See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to
factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.1 As such, the Court
reviews those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection
was filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See

id.; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that
Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge’s]
factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither party objects to those findings.”); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295,

1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become
11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant
amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or
not.”).

Upon independent review of the Magistrate Judge=s 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 properly informed the parties of the time period for objecting and
the consequences of failing to do so. See Report at 1, n.1.
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 23) is ADOPTED as
the opinion of the Court.
2. The Uncontested Motion & Brief for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 406(b) (Dkt. No. 22) is GRANTED.
3. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff's counsel the net
amount of $20,084.89 for § 406(b) fees out of Plaintiff's past-due
benefits.
4, The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 18th day of
October, 2024.

United States District Judge

ja
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10643316. Public record. Not legal advice.