Holbrook v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 17

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 16 Stipulation for Attorneys Fees under EAJA construed by the Court as a joint, unopposed motion. It is recommended that: 1. The stipulation for an EAJA fee award (doc. 16), construed as a joint, unopposed motion for an award of attorneys fees, be GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff be AWARDED the sum of $3,675.00 in EAJA fees; and 3. As no further matters remain pending for review, this case remain TERMINATED upon the Courts docket. Objections to R&R due by 3/3/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 2/14/2014. (gh1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
KIMBERLY HOLBROOK,
Plaintiff,

Case No.: 3:13-CV-072

vs.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,

District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 1

This case is before the Court pursuant to a request by Plaintiff for an award of her attorney’s
fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 2 Doc. 16. Plaintiff and
the Commissioner filed an agreed petition to an award of fees; this petition (doc. 16) is construed as
a joint, unopposed motion for $3,675.00 in EAJA fees.
I.
EAJA provides for an award of attorney’s fees to a party who prevails in a civil action
against the United States “when the position taken by the Government is not substantially justified
and no special circumstances exist warranting a denial of fees.” Bryant v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 578
F.3d 443, 445 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A)). A party who wins a Sentence
Four remand is a prevailing party for EAJA purposes. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 30102 (1993). EAJA fees are payable to the litigant. Astrue v. Ratliff, 586 U.S. 586, 589, 130 S. Ct.
2521, 2524 (2010).

1

Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and
Recommendation.
2
No costs are here at issue. Doc. 16 at PageID 96.

II.
On November 14, 2013, the Parties entered a joint motion to remand this case under
Sentence Four for further proceedings. Doc. 13. This motion was granted by Judge Rose on
November 15, 2013. Doc. 14. Accordingly, Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this case for EAJA
purposes, and is therefore entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under EAJA. See Shalala, 509
U.S. at 301-02.
Plaintiff’s counsel advises the Court that he worked 20.7 hours on this matter. Doc. 16-1 at
PageID 100. At the stipulated amount of $3,675.00, this calculates as $177.53 per hour -- an hourly
rate not challenged by the Commissioner. Having reviewed the time sheet entries submitted by
Plaintiff’s counsel, see doc. 16-1 at PageID 99-100, and considering the nature of the work counsel
performed in this matter, the Court finds the requested fees reasonable. Compare Kash v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., No. 3:11-CV-44, 2012 WL 3112373, at *2-3 (S.D. Ohio July 31, 2012) (Newman,
M.J.), adopted by 2012 WL 3636936, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 21, 2012) (Rice, J.) (finding an hourly
rate of $176.36 reasonable in an EAJA fee application). Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an
EAJA fees award in the amount of $3,675.00.
III.
Based upon the foregoing analysis, IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1.

The stipulation for an EAJA fee award (doc. 16), construed as a joint,
unopposed motion for an award of attorney’s fees, be GRANTED;

2.

Plaintiff be AWARDED the sum of $3,675.00 in EAJA fees; and

3.

As no further matters remain pending for review, this case remain
TERMINATED upon the Court’s docket.

February 14, 2014

s/ Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

-2-

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to
the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being served with this
Report and Recommendation.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to

SEVENTEEN days because this Report and Recommendation is being served by one of the
methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), and may be extended further
by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the
Report and Recommendation objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in
support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon
matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the
transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate
Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond
to another party’s objections within FOURTEEN days after being served with a copy thereof. As
is made clear above, this period is likewise extended to SEVENTEEN days if service of the
objections is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F). Failure to make
objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).

-3-