Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security Admin

Full title: JOHN W. JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Ohio

Date published: Aug 7, 2007

CASE NO. 5:05CV2155 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 7, 2007)

Opinion

CASE NO. 5:05CV2155.

August 7, 2007

OPINION ORDER [Resolving Doc. No. 16]

JAMES GWIN, District Judge

With this Order, the Court decides whether to adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation that the Court deny the Plaintiffs' petition for an award of attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"). [Doc. 16.] For the reasons presented below, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and DENIES the Plaintiffs' petition.

I. Background

On May 18, 2007, the Plaintiffs petitioned the Court for an award of attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the EAJA. [Doc. 16.] On June 6, 2007, the Court referred the Plaintiffs' petition to Magistrate Judge Limbert for a Report and Recommendation. [Doc. 18.] On July 19, 2007, Magistrate Judge Limbert completed his Report and recommended that the Court deny the Plaintiffs' petition. [Doc. 20.] Neither party objects to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation.

II. Legal Standard

The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those portions of the Report to which an objection has been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any objections must be filed with the Clerk of Court within ten days of the report's issuance. Id. Parties waive their right to appeal the Recommendation if they fail to object within the time allowed. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

III. Analysis

Here, more than ten days have elapsed from the issuance of Magistrate Judge Limbert's Report and Recommendation and neither party objects to the Recommendation. Having conducted its own review of the facts and findings in the case, the Court agrees with the conclusion of the Magistrate Judge. Therefore, the Court incorporates the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law fully herein by reference. Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' petition for an award of attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and DENIES the Plaintiffs' petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.