UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-23887-KMM

SANTRINESS ANGEL JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, 

Defendant. 

 / 

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff Santriness Angel Johnson’s 

(“Plaintiff”) Unopposed Application for Attorney Fees and Costs (“Application”) (ECF No. 23), 

under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The Court referred the 

matter to the Honorable Lauren F. Louis, United States Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that the Application be GRANTED. (“R&R”) (ECF No. 26). 

No objections were filed and the time to do so has 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 a 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, 

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 failed to object or has not properly objected to the magistrate judge’s 

Case 1:22-cv-23887-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2023 Page 1 of 3
2

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 the R&R, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends granting Plaintiff’s Application. R&R 

at 2. The EAJA empowers the Court to grant “reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys.”

McCullough v. Astrue, No. 08- 61954-CIV, 2009 WL 2461798, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 10, 2009). 

As the R&R explains, under the EAJA, a party is eligible for an award of attorney’s fees if: “(1) 

the party is a prevailing party in a non-tort suit involving the United States; (2) the Government’s 

position was not substantially justified; (3) the party timely files an application for attorney’s fees; 

(4) the party had a net worth of less than $2 million at the time the complaint was filed; and (5) 

there are no special circumstances which would make the award of fees unjust.” R&R at 1–2 

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)). Magistrate Judge Louis finds that Plaintiff has satisfied these

requirements because (1) Plaintiff is a prevailing party under the EAJA; (2) the Acting 

Commissioner failed to meet her burden to show that her position was substantially justified; (3) 

the application was timely filed; (4) Plaintiff’s net worth was less than $2 million at the time the 

complaint was filed; and (5) no special circumstances would make the award of fees unjust. R&R 

at 1–3. The Court agrees. The Court further agrees with the R&R’s finding that the requested 

rates for attorney’s fees are reasonable.

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 

Case 1:22-cv-23887-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2023 Page 2 of 3
3

ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26) is ADOPTED. And, Plaintiff’s 

Unopposed Application for Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 23), under the Equal Access to

Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded a total of $954.92 in 

attorney’s fees, to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel, contingent upon a determination by Defendant

that Plaintiff owes no qualifying debt(s) to the United States of America.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ____ day of July, 2023. 

K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record

7th

Case 1:22-cv-23887-KMM Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2023 Page 3 of 3