govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-1_21-cv-22181-2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
C
ase No. 1:21-cv-22181-KMM 
B
RANDON BLOCKER, 
P
laintiff, 
v.
 
M
ARTIN O’MALLEY, 
Commissioner of Social Security, 
D
efendant. 
/ 
O
RDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff  Brandon Blocker ’s (“Plaintiff”) 
Unopposed Request for Authorization to Charge a Reasonable Fee and Memorandum on 
Reasonable Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (“Motion” or “Mot.”) (ECF No. 24).  The Motion 
was referred to the Honorable Lauren F. Louis,  United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 25) who 
issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 26), 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, 
784 (11th Cir. 2006).  “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general 
Case 1:21-cv-22181-KMM   Document 27   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2025   Page 1 of 2
2 
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 her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis concludes that (1) Plaintiff is 
entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), less the EAJA  fees 
previously awarded , (2) the fee sought by Plaintiff’s counsel is reasonable and no reduction to the 
fee is necessary, and (3) Plaintiff may recover $8,838.75, less the EAJA fees previously awarded, 
for a net fee of $3,617.79, reflecting 25 percent of past-due benefits awarded to Plaintiff.  R&R at 
2–4.  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 the R&R (ECF No. 26) is ADOPTED.  Plaintiff’s  Unoppose d Request for 
Authorization to Charge a Reasonable Fee is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is awarded $3,617.79 pursuant 
in attorney’s fees to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1).  
 DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this _____ day of March, 2025. 
K. MICHAEL MOORE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
c: All counsel of record 
7th
Case 1:21-cv-22181-KMM   Document 27   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2025   Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight