Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
GARY F. STANDISH,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:25-cv-467-JDK-KNM
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Gary Standish filed this appeal from a final administrative decision
of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Docket No. 1. This case
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition. On May 13, 2026, the
Court reversed the Commissioner’s final administrative decision and remanded the
matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Docket No. 16.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Application for Attorney Fees Under
the Equal Access to Justice Act. Docket No. 20. On August 12, 2026, Judge Mitchell
issued a Report recommending that the Court grant the motion and award Plaintiff
$7,646.10 in fees. Docket No. 21. No written objections have been filed.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de
novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court
Case 6:25-cv-00467-JDK-KNM Document 22 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law.
Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., LLC, 875 F.3d 243, 249 (5th Cir. 2017).
Here, no objections have been filed. The Court therefore reviews the
Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal
conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v.
Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no objections to a
Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous,
abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
Having reviewed Judge Mitchell’s Report and the record in this case, the Court
finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 21) as the findings of this Court. The
motion for EAJA fees (Docket No. 20) is GRANTED. The Commissioner shall pay
Plaintiff for fees incurred totaling $7,646.10 pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. §
2412(d), with the funds payable to Plaintiff and forwarded to Plaintiff through her
attorney of record.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8th	October, 2026.
Case 6:25-cv-00467-JDK-KNM Document 22 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>