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)

Download PDF
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?