ANDREWS v. ASTRUE
Filing
18
ORDER GRANTING 16 Motion for Attorney Fees. Ordered by U.S. District Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 1/10/2014. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
STEVE ANDREWS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-275 (MTT)
ORDER
Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (Doc. 16) pursuant to
the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), following the remand of his claim
for Social Security benefits. The Act provides that a prevailing plaintiff may recover
attorney’s fees incurred in a suit against the United States unless the position of the
United States was “substantially justified or…special circumstances make an award
unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). On September 5, 2013, the Court adopted the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and reversed and remanded this action to the
Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
(Doc. 14). A claimant who obtains a court order remanding his Social Security claim to
the Commissioner for further proceedings is a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal
Access to Justice Act. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-01 (1993).
The Plaintiff, as the prevailing party, now requests attorney’s fees in the amount
of $5,933.84 for 32 hours of work. The Commissioner filed a response in which she
does not object to the request for or amount of fees, and does not contend that her
position was “substantially justified.” (Doc. 17). Given that there is no objection to the
amount of fees, number of hours requested, or hourly rate, and that the Court finds the
request reasonable, the Plaintiff's motion for attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,933.84
is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, this 10th day of January, 2014.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?