UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 2:22-cv-14342-KMM

Angelica Azeneth Cardozo,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees

Under the Equal Access to Justice Act. (“Motion” or “Mot”) (ECF No. 17). Therein, Plaintiff 

requests that the Court enter an order granting it $640.87 to be paid to her attorney pursuant to the 

Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. See Mot. at 3. The matter was referred to the 

Honorable Ryon M. McCabe, United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 18). On April 27, 2023, 

Magistrate Judge McCabe issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 19),

recommending that the Motion be GRANTED. No objections to the R&R were filed, and the time 

to do so has now passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court 

ADOPTS the R&R.

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); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). 

The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific 

objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 

Case 2:22-cv-14342-KMM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general 

objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id. Yet when a party has not properly objected 

to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on 

the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 

14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, 

No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge 

“evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” 

(citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))).

In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge McCabe concludes that the fee 

award sought by Plaintiff’s counsel is reasonable based on the hours worked and tasks performed. 

See id. at 3. This Court agrees. 

Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions 

of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND 

ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge McCabe’s R&R (ECF No. 19) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s

Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $640.87 in attorney’s fees, to be paid to Plaintiff’s 

counsel once the U.S. Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff owes no debt to the 

United States. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this _____ day of May, 2023.

K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record

10th

Case 2:22-cv-14342-KMM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 2 of 2