Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 28

ORDER adopting 27 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 26 Unopposed MOTION for Attorney Fees Pursuant to EAJA filed by Olivia Williams. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 6/4/2018. (ctp)(JLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
OLIVIA WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:17-cv-275-Orl-37GJK

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
ORDER
In this social security appeal, Plaintiff sought review of the Commissioner of Social
Security’s (the “Commissioner”) decision to deny her disability benefits. (See Doc. 1.) On
February 6, 2018, the Court reversed the Commissioner’s final decision and remanded
the action for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 24.) The following day, the Court
entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff. (Doc. 25.)
As the prevailing party, Plaintiff now: (1) seeks an award for attorney fees under
the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) in the amount of $6,197.62; and (2) requests that,
if the U.S. Department of Treasury determines that she does not owe a debt to the
U.S. Government, the Commissioner honor Plaintiff’s assignment of the EAJA fees and
pay those fees directly to his counsel.1 (Doc. 26 (“Fees Motion”).) On referral,
U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly recommends that the Court grant the Fees Motion

On April 24, 2018, Plaintiff assigned her right to any fees awarded under the
EAJA to her counsel. (See Doc. 26-3 (“Assignment”).)
1

-1-

in part. (Doc. 27 (“R&R”).)
In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Kelly concludes that: (1) Plaintiff is entitled to the
full amount of the requested EAJA fees; and (2) the hours worked and the hourly rate
underlying the award are reasonable. (Id. at 2.) Magistrate Judge Kelly, however,
recommends that the Court deny the Fees Motion as to Plaintiff’s request to pay the EAJA
fees directly to her counsel and notes that an assignment made prior to the award of
attorney fees “necessarily violates the Anti-Assignment Act because the claim has not
been allowed, the amount of the claim has not been decided, and a warrant for the claim
has not been issued.” (Id.) So he recommends awarding the EAJA fees to Plaintiff. (Id.
at 3.)
No party objected to the R&R, and the time for doing so has now passed. Absent
objections, the Court has examined the R&R only for clear error. See Wiand v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., No. 8:12-cv-557-T-27EAJ, 2016 WL 355490, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2016); see
also Marcort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Finding no clear error, the
Court concludes that the R&R is due to be adopted in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 27) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part of this Order.

2.

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorney Fees Pursuant to the
Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 26) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent
identified in the R&R. In all other respects the Fees Motion is DENIED.

3.

The Court awards Plaintiff Olivia Williams attorney fees under the EAJA in
-2-

the amount of $6,197.62.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on June 4, 2018.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-