BRIGHTMON v. BERRYHILL

Filing 37

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's petition for attorney's fees, ECF No. 34 , be GRANTED in light of the parties' stipulation and that the court award attorney's fees of $10, 245.48, $218.00 in costs, and $26.18 in expenses. The Commissioner should be afforded, however, the opportunity to offset from this amount any debt owed by the Plaintiff to the United States that may be identified by the Department of Tr easury and any ultimate distribution shall be made in accordance with Astrue v. Ratliff. R&R flag set. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES A STAMPELOS on 1/22/19. Internal deadline for referral to district judge if objections are not filed earlier: 2/19/2019. (amm)

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
WILLIAM E. BRIGHTMON,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CASE NO. 1:16cv132-MW/CAS

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.

/
REPORT AND RECOMENDATION

As the prevailing party in this case, ECF Nos. 29-30, 33, Plaintiff filed
a petition for attorney’s fees (including costs and expenses) pursuant to the
Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. ' 2412(d). 1 ECF No. 34.
Plaintiff’s attorney requests an award for attorney’s fees of $10,630.84,
costs of $218.00, and expenses of $26.18. Id. On January 22, 2019,
Defendant filed a Joint Stipulation and stated the parties “stipulated and
agreed” that Plaintiff’s petition “should be dismissed as moot” considering

In Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993), the Supreme Court held that a
social security plaintiff who obtained a remand reversing the Commissioner’s decision
under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) was the “prevailing party,” and as such was
entitled to attorney’s fees and expenses under the EAJA.
1

Case No. 1:16cv132-MW/CAS

Page 2 of 3

the terms and conditions set forth in the Joint Stipulation. ECF No. 36.
Defendant agrees that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of $10,245.48 in
attorney’s fees, $218.00 in costs, and $26.18 in expenses under the EAJA.
Id.; see id. at 2 n.1 (costs and expenses separately stated). It is
represented that Plaintiff agrees. Id.
In accordance with Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2524 (2010), the
EAJA fee should be made payable to Plaintiff, not to Plaintiff’s attorney.
Since the fee was assigned to Plaintiff's attorney, payment of the fee to
Plaintiff’s attorney is authorized so long as Plaintiff has no debt to the
United States, and any such debt will be offset before payment.
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff=s petition
for attorney’s fees, ECF No. 34, be GRANTED in light of the parties’
stipulation and that the court award attorney’s fees of $10,245.48, $218.00
in costs, and $26.18 in expenses. The Commissioner should be afforded,
however, the opportunity to offset from this amount any debt owed by the
Plaintiff to the United States that may be identified by the Department of
Treasury and any ultimate distribution shall be made in accordance with

Case No. 1:16cv132-MW/CAS

Page 3 of 3

Astrue v. Ratliff.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on January 22, 2019.
s/ Charles A. Stampelos
CHARLES A. STAMPELOS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific
written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served
upon all other parties. A party may respond to another party’s
objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy
thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may
appear on the electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only
and does not control. If a party fails to object to the magistrate
judge’s findings or recommendations as to any particular claim or
issue contained in a Report and Recommendation, that party waives
the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on the
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.

Case No. 1:16cv132-MW/CAS