Callaway v. Colvin

Filing 31

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 27 Motion to Alter EAJA Order under Local Rule 59(E) re 26 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees. The July 26, 2017 Order vacated and will be treated as a Report and Recommendation. The Parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to object to the Report and Recommendation. A party may then respond within fourteen (14) days of being served with the objection. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 01/10/2019. (thb) Modified on 1/10/2019 (thb).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
5

LEE A. CALLAWAY,

■k

*

Plaintiff,

*

V.

*

CV

115-166

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social

Security,
Defendant.

ORDER

Before

the

Court

is

Plaintiff's

motion

to

vacate

judgment under the Equal Access to Justice Act
27. )

For the following reasons.

PART AND

DENIED

IN

(^^EAJA") .

alter

(Doc.

Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED IN

PART.

I.

Plaintiff

or

filed

the

BACKGROUND

present

action

on

October

14,

2015,

seeking review of the Social Security Administration's denial of
Plaintiff's

(Compl. ,

claim

for

Doc. 1, H 2. )

benefits

under

2017,

the

magistrate

recommendation,

pursuant

Commissioner

Social

of

Social

Security

Act.

The appeal was referred to the magistrate

court for review and recommendation.

17,

the

to

(Order,

court
42

Security's

Doc.

issued

U.S.C.
final

9. )

its

On January

report

and

that

the

§ 405(g),
decision

be

reversed.

(Magistrate Judge's R. & R., Doc. 17.)

The Court adopted the

report and recoimnendation on February 9, 2017.

(Order, Doc. 19.)

On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Attorney's

Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
(Doc. 21.)

The motion for attorney's fees was referred to the

magistrate court.

(Docket, Apr. 4, 2017.)

On July 26, 2017, the

magistrate court entered an Order granting in part and denying in
part Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees.^
Plaintiff challenges the

attorney's fees

(Order, Doc. 26.)

award as

void,

and,

alternatively, argues that the award should be altered.

II. DISCUSSION

The

Federal

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure

establish

that '"the

court . . . may refer a motion for attorney's fees to a magistrate

judge under Rule 72(b) as if it were
matter."

dispositive

Fed.

R.

Civ.

pretrial

P.

a

dispositive pretrial

54(d)(2)(D).

matter

assigned

When

""^without

considering

the

a

parties'

consent," pursuant to Rule 72, ''[t]he magistrate judge must enter
a recommended disposition."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1).

Moreover,

neither the Local Rules nor 28 U.S.C. § 636 provide authority to

' Plaintiff requested $13,362.79 in attorney's fees. (Order, Doc. 26, at 1.)

The magistrate court awarded $7,926.28.

(Id. at 4.)

In his present motion.

Plaintiff alternatively asks the Court to alter the magistrate court's
attorney's fees award. Because the Court grants Plaintiff's motion pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), it refrains analyzing the motion under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.

enter a dispositive order on a contested attorney's fees motion
without the parties' consent.

An order of a magistrate court

exceeding its statutory jurisdiction is to be vacated.

Brown v.

United States, 748 F.3d 1045, 1058, 1072 {11th Cir. 2014).

Plaintiff argues that the magistrate court entered an order
determining attorney's fees without the parties' consent.

As a

result. Plaintiff's position is that the magistrate court entered

the July 26th Order in excess of its authority.
not contest this point.

reconsider

the

July

Defendant does

Plaintiff, therefore, asks this Court to

26th

Order

under

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure 60(b)(4).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), "[o]n

motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from a

final

judgment,

order,

or

proceeding

for

the

following

reasons: . . . (4) the judgment is void." A judgment is generally
void under Rule 60(b)(4) "if the court that rendered it lacked

jurisdiction of the subject matter."

Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d

1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).

Additionally,

"[a] judgment . . . is void for Rule 60(b)(4) purposes if the
rendering court was powerless to enter it."

Id.

Whether to grant a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) is within
the court's sound discretion.

(11th Cir. 2014).

Arthur v. Thomas, 739 F.3d 611, 628

However, "a district court's failure to vacate

a void judgment is per se an abuse of discretion."

Oldfield v.

Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1217 (11th Cir. 2009).
The Court finds that Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees was a

contested dispositive motion on that issue.

The magistrate court's

Order resolving that motion, without the consent of the Parties,

exceeded the magistrate's authority.

The proper resolution of

Plaintiff's

fees

motion

recommendation

for

pursuant

52(d)(2)(D) and 72(b).

attorney's

to

Federal

Rules

is

of

a

report

and

Civil

Procedure

Accordingly, the Order is void.

Following

this Circuit's precedent, the Court must vacate the July 26th
Order.

Plaintiff requests that upon the Court concluding that the

July 26th Order was entered without jurisdiction, ^^The District
Judge may then re-refer Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees to
the Magistrate Judge for the Magistrate Judge to issue a report
and recommendation."

(Mot. to Vacate, Doc. 27, at 2.)

concludes re-referring the motion is unnecessary.

The Court

Federal courts

across the country, in similar circumstances, have determined that
when a magistrate order should have been issued as a report and
recommendation, the order may be treated as such. See, e.g., David
V. District of Columbia, 252 F.R.D. 56, 58-59 (D.D.C. Sept. 11,

2008) (citing Leyse v. Corp. Collection Servs., 557 F. Supp. 2d
442, 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); Sieverdinq v. Colo. Bar Ass'n, No. 02cv-01950, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70777, at *6 (D. Colo. Sept. 27,
2006)).

The Court does the same here.

Ill. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's
motion to vacate or alter judgment {Doc. 27) is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART.
and

The July 26, 2017 Order (Doc. 26) is VACATED

will be treated as a REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.

As such.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) governs the time for

objections to the Report and Recommendation.

The Parties shall

have FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this Order to object to

the Report and Recommendation.

A party may then respond within

FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of being served with the objection.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this /^^ay of January,
2019.

Cl hall, chief judge
STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA