Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
ANGELA ELISE HUDMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§ Case No. 6:24-cv-202-JDK-KNM
§
§
§
§
§
§
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Angela Elise Hudman filed this appeal from a final administrative
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying an
application for benefits. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K.
Nicole Mitchell. On September 9, 2025, the Court reversed the Commissioner’s final
administrative decision and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further
proceedings.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access
to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Docket No. 15. On December 12, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued
a Report recommending that the Court grant the motion and award Plaintiff
$7,200.00 in fees. Docket No. 16. 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 6:24-cv-00202-JDK-KNM Document 17 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law.
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc),
superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to
file objections from ten to fourteen days).
Here, the parties did not object in the prescribed period. 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 the
standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” if
no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed). Having reviewed the
Magistrate Judge’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. 16) as the findings of this Court.
The motion for EAJA fees (Docket No. 15) is GRANTED. The Commissioner shall
pay Plaintiff for fees incurred totaling $7,200.00 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
14th	January, 2026.
Case 6:24-cv-00202-JDK-KNM Document 17 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>