SHEPHERD v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER

Filing 35

ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re Report and Recommendations re: 34 Report and Recommendations ; granting in part and denying in part 21 Motion for Attorney Fees By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (akr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
BUCK S.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) 2:17-cv-00465-JDL
)
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant.
)
ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge, John H. Rich III, filed his Recommended
Decision (ECF No. 34) on Buck S.’s disability benefits appeal with the Court on
December 19, 2018, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). The time within which to file objections expired on January 2, 2019, and no
objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge notified the parties that failure to
object would waive their right to de novo review and appeal.
Having reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended
Decision, I concur with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions as set forth in his
Recommended Decision.

In adopting the Recommended Decision, I provide the

following clarification regarding Section D, titled “Future Adjustment of Rate for
Social Security Paralegals,” which provides that paralegal rates will be adjusted in
future cases using the same index (PPI/Legal Index) applied in this case. See ECF
No. 36 at 13. As precedent of this court, the decision in this case may be considered
as persuasive authority in future cases addressing paralegal rates, but it is not

binding. See United States v. Baez, 878 F. Supp. 2d 288, 295 (D. Mass. 2012), aff’d,
744 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2014) (“[B]inding precedent, in the absence of a Supreme Court
decision on a point of law, is established in the federal system by the United States
Circuit Courts of Appeal. While perhaps persuasive, decisions of the federal district
courts are not binding on any parties other than those in the case generating that
particular decision.”).
It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 34) of
the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED and the motion for attorney’s fees is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 5th day of February, 2019.
/s/ Jon D. Levy
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2