Hart-Bevan v. Saul, Commissioner of SSA
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING 35 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 05/22/2023. (jmb)
Case 4:21-cv-00145-ALM-KPJ Document 36 Filed 05/22/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1845
United States District Court
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
MISTY GAYLE HART-BEVAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-145-ALM-KPJ
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action,
this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
On May 1, 2023, the Magistrate Judge entered proposed findings of fact and recommendations
(Dkt. #35) that Plaintiff Misty Gayle Hart-Bevan’s Motion for Attorney Fees pursuant to the Equal
Access to Justice Act (“the EAJA Motion”) (Dkt. #29) be granted.
Having received the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no timely objections
being filed, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge
are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
Accordingly, the EAJA Motion (Dkt. #29) is GRANTED.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees under the EAJA in the amount of
$16,836.29. This award shall be made payable to Plaintiff and sent to Plaintiff’s counsel, Paul
Burkhalter. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 593 (2010) (EAJA fees are paid to the prevailing
party, not the attorney).
Case 4:21-cv-00145-ALM-KPJ Document 36 Filed 05/22/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1846
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 22nd day of May, 2023.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?