Maddox v. Astrue
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 26 MOTION for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act filed by Terry Maddox; For the reasons explained in this Recommendation, The Mag Judge concludes the fee request is made is accordance with applicable statutes, and therefore, Recommends that fees in the amount of $3,750.00 be awarded to Plaintiff; Objections to R&R due by 5/18/2009. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 5/5/09. (vma, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION TERRY MADDOX, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07cv515-WKW ) )
) ) )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE This case is now before the Court on Plaintiff's Application for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 26, filed April 27, 2009). This case was remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration. (Doc. 25, entered January 27, 2009). Through Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Application, (Doc. 28 filed May 5, 2009), the Commissioner agrees to pay $ 3,750.00 under the Act (EAJA). Upon review, the Court determines that the plaintiff's application for an award of attorney fees and costs under EAJA is timely filed, that Plaintiff has met the requisite prevailing party status entitling him to an award of fees, and that the terms of the award agreed upon by the parties are reasonable. For the reasons explained in this
Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge concludes the fee request is made is accordance with applicable statutes, and therefore, RECOMMENDS that fees in the amount of $3750.00 be awarded to Plaintiff. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to the said
Recommendation by May 18, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.
Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Done this 5th day of May, 2008. /s/ Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?