govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-2_22-cv-14346-0

U UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
FORT PIERCE DIVISION 
 
CASE NO. 22-14346-CIV-CANNON/McCabe 
 
NICOLE JEANETTE POUNDS, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v.      
 
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 
 
Defendant. 
____________________________________/ 
 
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 37] 
 
THIS CAUSE  comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 
Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for EAJA Fees pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 2412(d) 
[ECF No. 37], issued on June 1, 2026.  On May 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for 
EAJA Fees (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 36], seeking fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 
(“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), following the Court’s entry of final judgment in Plaintiff’s favor 
[see generally ECF Nos. 35, 36].  On June 1, 2026, following referral, Magistrate Judge McCabe 
issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted  [ECF No. 37 p. 3].  Objections to the 
Report were due on June 15, 2026 [ECF No. 37 p. 3].  No party filed  objections, and the time to 
do so has expired [ECF No. 37 p. 3]. 
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file 
specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation 
to which objection is made.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones , 863 F.2d 815, 822 
(11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc ., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).  A district court 
reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, 
Case 2:22-cv-14346-AMC   Document 38   Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2026   Page 1 of 2
  CASE NO. 22-14346-CIV-CANNON/McCabe 
2 
 
or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.  
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).  To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, 
the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the 
record.  Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784.   
Following review, the Court finds the well-reasoned Report to contain no clear error.  For 
the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 37], it is hereby 
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 37] is ACCEPTED. 
2. The Motion [ECF No. 36] is GRANTED. 
3. Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $9,521.88 pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. § 2412(d), payable to Plaintiff and sent to Plaintiff’s counsel’s office after 
the Commissioner determines whether Plaintiff owes any federal debts. 
ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 17th day of June 2026.
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
            _________________________________ 
            AILEEN M. CANNON 
            UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE  
 
cc: counsel of record 
Case 2:22-cv-14346-AMC   Document 38   Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2026   Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight