Opinion
5:22-cv-00278-MTT-CHW
06-29-2023
R.D.O., Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Defendant.
Social Security Appeal
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Charles H. Weigle, United States Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2412. After Plaintiff filed his first motion for attorney's fees (Doc. 15), but before the Commissioner responded, Plaintiff filed a second motion amending the amount requested fees. (Doc. 16). The Commissioner has no objection to the request for fees as amended. (Doc. 17). It is RECOMMENDED that the motion be GRANTED.
In a prior Order, the Court granted the Commissioner's unopposed motion (Doc. 11) and remanded this case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 13). The motion was based on the Commissioner's request to remand for further consideration of a physician's medical opinion. (Doc. 11-1).
Plaintiff now asks for attorney's fees in the amount of $7,434.74 for 31.6 hours expended in litigating this case. The Commissioner has not opposed Plaintiff's request, the requested hours appear to be within a reasonable range, and the rates requested by Plaintiff - $234.95 for 2022, and $243.55 for 2023 - appear to comport with this Court's CPI formula established in Hartage v. Astrue, No. 4:09-cv-48, 2011 WL 1123401 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 2011). See also D.H.C. v. Comm'r, 2019 WL 5848062 at *2 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 7, 2019) (granting an EAJA award of $7,982.52 for 40 hours of attorney work).
It is accordingly RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's unopposed second motion for EAJA fees (Doc. 16) be GRANTED, and that Plaintiff be awarded $7,434.74 in attorney's fees. This award should be made payable to Plaintiff directly. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 (2010). Plaintiff's first motion for attorney's fees (Doc. 15) should be administratively terminated.
OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Any objection is limited in length to TWENTY (20) PAGES. See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4. The District Judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. All other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error.
The parties are further notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.”
SO RECOMMENDED.