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)

Download PDF
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?