Bowman v. Commissioner of SSA, No. 1:2009cv00248 - Document 29 (N.D. Ohio 2014)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: This Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error, hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. In accordance with that recommendation, the Court hereby approves attorney's fees in the amount of $11,582.50 with $2,000.00 to be remitted to plaintiff. The Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 3/27/14. (LC,S) re 27
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bowman v. Commissioner of SSA Doc. 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Douglas A. Bowman, Plaintiff, Vs. Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:09 CV 248 JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN Memorandum of Opinion and Order INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II (Doc. 27) recommending that the Court approve counsel’s request for attorney’s fees in the amount of $11,582.50, with $2,000.00 to be remitted back to plaintiff. No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and the fee request is approved. STANDARD OF REVIEW When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the 1 Dockets.Justia.com district court reviews the case de novo. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides in pertinent part: The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. As stated in the Advisory Committee Notes, “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” In Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the Court held, “It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” DECISION This Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error, hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. In accordance with that recommendation, the Court hereby approves attorney’s fees in the amount of $11,582.50 with $2,000.00 to be remitted to plaintiff. The Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3/27/14 /s/ Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
