IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

RAVEN LANHAM,

Plaintiff, 

v.

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

 Defendant.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ CASE NO. 6:23-cv-513-JDK-KNM

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Raven Lanham filed this appeal from a final administrative decision 

of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying an application for 

Social Security benefits. On March 5, 2024, the Court reversed the Commissioner’s 

final administrative decision and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for 

further proceedings. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney Fees 

Under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Docket No. 15. The motion was referred to 

United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact and 

recommendations for disposition. Docket No. 17. The Commissioner filed a response 

stating that he does not oppose the requested award of attorney fees. Docket No. 16. 

1

Case 6:23-cv-00513-JDK-KNM Document 19 Filed 07/11/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 3589
On June 13, 2024, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that the 

Court grant the application and award Plaintiff $9,954.60 in fees. Docket No. 18. No 

written objections have been filed. 

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and 

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court 

examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. 

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), 

superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 

file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

Here, the parties did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore 

reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and 

reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 916 

(1989) (holding that the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion 

and contrary to law” if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed). Having 

reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, the Court finds 

no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of 

the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 18) as the findings of this Court. 

The application for EAJA fees (Docket No. 15) is GRANTED. The Commissioner

shall pay Plaintiff for fees incurred totaling $9,954.60 pursuant to the EAJA, 28 

2

Case 6:23-cv-00513-JDK-KNM Document 19 Filed 07/11/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 3590
U.S.C. § 2412(d), with the funds payable to Plaintiff and forwarded to Plaintiff 

through her attorney of record. The awarded fees consist only of attorney fees and do

not include any amount for costs. 

3

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11th July, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00513-JDK-KNM Document 19 Filed 07/11/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 3591