UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-60939-CIV-ALTMAN/Hunt

FRANK MELERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_________________________/

ORDER

Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt has submitted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

[ECF No. 34], in which he suggests that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act [ECF No. 30] (the “Motion”) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 

PART. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Hunt has found that the Plaintiff is entitled to $7,439.24 in 

attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) and to the $400.00 filing fee. See R&R 

at 2–4. 

Magistrate Judge Hunt has also advised the parties as follows: 

Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of this Report and 

Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above 

findings and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this district. 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). The parties are hereby notified that a failure 

to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based 

on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and 

Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).” 

Id. at 5. Neither party objected to the R&R, and 14 days have passed. See generally Docket.

When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must 

review that disposition de novo. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). But, when no party has timely objected, 

“the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 

Case 0:20-cv-60939-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2022 Page 1 of 3
2

accept the recommendation.” Id., advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 

itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that Congress intended

to require de novo review only where objections have been properly filed—and not, as here, when 

neither party objects. See 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.”). In any event, the “[f]ailure 

to object to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these 

findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 

410 (5th Cir. 1982)).

“To be clearly erroneous, a decision must strike us as more than just maybe or probably wrong; 

it must, as one member of this court recently stated during oral argument, strike us as wrong with 

the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish.” Parts & Elec. Motors, Inc. v. Sterling Elec., Inc., 

866 F.2d 228, 233 (7th Cir. 1988). The Court has reviewed the R&R, the Motion, the record, and the 

governing law, and we can find no clear error on the face of the R&R. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS AND ADJUDGES as follows: 

1. The R&R [ECF No. 34] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.

2. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act [ECF 

No. 30] (the “Motion”) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The 

Plaintiff shall be awarded $7,439.24 in attorneys’ fees and the filing fee in the amount 

of $400.00.

Case 0:20-cv-60939-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2022 Page 2 of 3
3

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 20th day of May 2022. 

 _________________________________

 ROY K. ALTMAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-60939-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2022 Page 3 of 3