Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-03052
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Schofield adopted a recommendation granting in part and denying in part Ortiz’s fee motion and awarding $17,875.02.
Nidia I. Ortiz, who sought attorney’s fees, and the Commissioner of Social Security.
What happened
In Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security, Nidia I. Ortiz sought attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave.
Judge Cave recommended granting in part and denying in part the fee motion and awarding Ortiz $17,875.02. No timely objections were filed to that recommendation.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the fee motion.
The detailed version
- Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:22-cv-03052
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 12, 2023
Background
Nidia I. Ortiz sought attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that can allow a party to recover fees in certain cases against the government. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave.
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
On November 27, 2023, Judge Cave issued a Report and Recommendation. It recommended that Ortiz’s motion for attorney’s fees be granted in part and denied in part, with an award of $17,875.02. The deadline for objections was 14 days after service of the report, and no timely objections were filed.
District Court’s Review and Ruling
When no timely objection is filed, the district judge reviews the record for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. Judge Lorna G. Schofield found no clear error in Judge Cave’s recommendations and adopted the Report in full for the reasons stated in it. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Docket Number 28. The order does not provide additional details about which portions of the fee request were granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.