Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00469/USCOURTS-alsd-1_14-cv-00469-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JANICE B. JONES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00469-KD-B

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, )

Commissioner of Social Security,)

)

Defendant. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This action is before the Court on Plaintiff’s unopposed1

Application for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice 

Act (EAJA) and Defendant’s response thereto. (Docs. 14, 16). 

This action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for 

report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 

and Local Rule 72.2(c)(3). Upon consideration of the pertinent 

pleadings, it is the recommendation of the undersigned that 

Plaintiff’s application be GRANTED and that Plaintiff be awarded 

a reasonable attorney fee in the amount of $3,107.37 under the 

EAJA for legal services rendered by her attorney in this Court

and court costs of $400.00.

 1 On June 30, 2015, the Commissioner filed a response to 

Plaintiff’s Application for Attorneys Fees Under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) stating that she does not oppose 

Plaintiff’s motion and that she agrees to pay Plaintiff 

$3,107.37 in attorney fees under the EAJA and $400.00 in court 

costs. (Doc. 16).

Case 1:14-cv-00469-KD-B Document 17 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 5
2

Plaintiff commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner 

denying her application for a period of disability, disability 

insurance benefits, and supplemental security income benefits. 

(Doc. 1). An order and judgment granting the Commissioner’s 

unopposed Motion to Remand and reversing and remanding the case 

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further 

administrative proceedings were entered on April 17, 2015. 

(Docs. 12, 13). Plaintiff is thus the prevailing party.

Plaintiff timely filed a motion for attorney fees under 

the EAJA in the amount of $3,237.62 and court costs in the 

amount of $400.00. (Doc. 14). The Commissioner filed a 

response consenting to the payment of $3,107.37 to Plaintiff as 

attorney fees under the Act and court costs in the amount of 

$400.00. (Doc. 16). Plaintiff’s counsel has advised the Court 

that he does not oppose the lesser award of attorney’s fees 

consented to by the Commissioner and that he stipulates and 

agrees to said amount.

The undersigned finds, based on Plaintiff’s application and 

the formula set forth in Lucy v. Astrue, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

97094, *13-14 (S.D. Ala. July 5, 2007), that an hourly rate of 

Case 1:14-cv-00469-KD-B Document 17 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 5
3

$186.07 is appropriate.2 The undersigned further finds that 

17.40 hours is a reasonable number of hours for attorney time 

expended representing Plaintiff in federal court.3 Thus, 

considering 17.40 hours of work performed at a rate of $186.07

per hour, Plaintiff is entitled to the agreed upon attorney’s 

fees of $3,107.37, which is less than the formula provides, plus 

court costs of $400.00.

Upon consideration of all pertinent materials presented 

and the authorities cited herein, the undersigned Magistrate 

Judge RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s

Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act be GRANTED and 

that Plaintiff be awarded a reasonable attorney’s fee in the 

amount of $3,107.37, under the EAJA for legal services rendered 

 2 As discussed in Plaintiff’s application, the Lucy formula 

yields an hourly rate of $186.07, which the undersigned finds is 

reasonable. 

3 Plaintiff has attached to the motion a time sheet detailing the 

description of work performed, the time expended, and the date 

on which the work was performed. (Doc. 14, att. 1). The 

undersigned has reviewed this document and has considered the 

circumstances presented, as well as the usual number of hours 

billed by attorneys in similar actions. See, e.g., Clausell v. 

Astrue, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167856, *7, 2012 WL 5933025 (S.D. 

Ala. Nov. 27, 2012) (awarding attorney fees under the EAJA and 

finding 19.2 hours of attorney time in a social security case to 

be reasonable); Carter v. Astrue, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132089, 

*4-5, 2012 WL 4077289, *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2012) (accord) 

(finding 14 hours of attorney time in a social security case to 

be reasonable). 

Case 1:14-cv-00469-KD-B Document 17 Filed 07/09/15 Page 3 of 5
4

by her attorney in this Court, plus court costs of $400.00.4

Notice of Right to File Objections

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who 

objects to this recommendation or anything in it must, within 

fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file 

specific written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); S.D. Ala. L.R.

72.4. The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit 

precedent, “the failure to object limits the scope of [] 

appellate review to plain error review of the magistrate judge’s 

factual findings.” Dupree v. Warden, Attorney General, State of 

 4 The undersigned notes that the Commissioner has agreed that, 

“[i]f the award to Plaintiff is not subject to the Treasury 

Offset Program, payment will be made by check to Plaintiff’s 

counsel, Byron Lassiter, . . . in accordance with Plaintiff’s 

assignment to her attorney of her right to payment of attorney’s 

fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.” (Doc. 16 at 1). 

The Supreme Court has held that an EAJA “fees award is payable 

to the litigant and is therefore subject to a Government offset 

to satisfy a pre-existing debt that the litigant owes the United 

States.” Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589, (2010). “‘In 

light of Ratliff, [the best] practice [is] to simply award the 

EAJA fees directly to Plaintiff as the prevailing party and 

remain silent regarding the direction of payment of those fees. 

It is not the duty of the Court to determine whether Plaintiff 

owes a debt to the government that may be satisfied, in whole or 

in part, from the EAJA fees award. The Court leaves it to the 

discretion of the Commissioner to determine whether to honor 

[any] assignment of EAJA fees.’” Napier v. Colvin, 2014 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 89291, *15 n.1, 2014 WL 2960976, *1 n.1 (S.D. Ala. 

July 1, 2014) (citations omitted); Blackwell v. Colvin, 2015 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23070, *9 n.4, 2015 WL 846423, *3 n.4 (S.D. 

Ala. Feb. 26, 2015).

Case 1:14-cv-00469-KD-B Document 17 Filed 07/09/15 Page 4 of 5
5

Alabama, 715 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2011). In order to be 

specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or 

recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for 

the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s 

report and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or 

refers to the briefing before the Magistrate Judge is not 

specific.

DONE this 8th day of July, 2015.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00469-KD-B Document 17 Filed 07/09/15 Page 5 of 5