Opinion
3:20-CV-549-TLS-JEM
04-08-2021
ELIZABETH JOJO, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
FINDINGS, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(B) & (C)
JOHN E. MARTIN MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Expenses Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) [DE 19], filed on March 17, 2021. On March 30, 2021, the Commissioner filed a response representing that the parties agree that an award of $7, 600.00 in fees and $420.85 in costs be paid to Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
On August 10, 2020, Judge Theresa L. Springmann entered an Order [DE 7] referring this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation on the instant case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). This Report constitutes the undersigned Magistrate Judge's combined proposed findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Upon review of the Motion and noting the agreement of the parties, the Court hereby RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT the Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Expenses Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) [DE 19] and ORDER that Plaintiff be awarded of $7, 600.00 in fees and $420.85 in costs. This award shall fully and completely satisfy any and all claims for fees, costs, and/or expenses that may have been payable to Plaintiff in this matter under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. If the Commissioner can verify that Plaintiff does not owe any pre-existing debt subject to an offset, the Commissioner will direct the award to be made payable to Plaintiff's attorney pursuant to the EAJA assignment signed by Plaintiff and Plaintiff's attorney.
This Report and Recommendation is submitted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Recommendation to file written objections thereto with the Clerk of Court. The failure to file a timely objection will result in waiver of the right to challenge this Recommendation before either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. Willis v. Caterpillar, Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1999); Hunger v. Leininger, 15 F.3d 664, 668 (7th Cir. 1994); The Provident Bank v. Manor Steel Corp., 882 F.2d 258, 260-261 (7th Cir. 1989); Lebovitz v. Miller, 856 F.2d 902, 905 n.2 (7th Cir. 1988).
SO ORDERED.