Potris v. Department of Homeland Security et al
Filing
20
ORDER Adopting 19 Report and Recommendation Denying 9 Motion for Attorney Fees, filed by Raheel Behnam Potris. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RAHEEL BEHNAM POTRIS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15-11309
v.
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge
SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Anthony P. Patti
United States Magistrate Judge
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 19) AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR COSTS AND FEES PURSUANT TO
THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (ECF NO. 9)
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti’s November 20, 2015
Report and Recommendation regarding Plaintiff’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees under
the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (“EAJA”). (Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 19). As set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Application for Attorneys’
Fees because Plaintiff is not entitled to “prevailing party” status under the EAJA.
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and there being no timely
objections from either party under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich L.R. 72.1(d), the
Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19); and DENIES Plaintiff’s
Application for Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (ECF No. 9).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 18, 2015
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each
attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on
December 18, 2015.
s/Deborah Tofil
Case Manager
2
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?