1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGELA BEVERIDGE,

Plaintiff

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

________________________/

Case No. 14-14226

Paul D. Borman

United States District Judge

Stephanie Dawkins Davis

United State Magistrate Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURUSANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 3, 2014, plaintiff filed the instant suit seeking judicial review 

of the Commissioner’s unfavorable decision disallowing benefits. (Dkt. 1). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1(b)(3), District Judge 

Paul D. Borman referred this matter to then Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk 

for the purpose of reviewing the Commissioner’s decision denying plaintiff’s claim 

for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. (Dkt. 3). This matter 

was reassigned to the undersigned on January 5, 2016. See Text-Only Order dated 

1/5/16. On March 10, 2016, the undersigned recommended that judgment be 

entered in plaintiff’s favor and this matter remanded for further proceedings, and 

the recommendation was adopted by the District Court. (Dkt. 23, 24). The Court 

Case 2:14-cv-14226-PDB-SDD ECF No. 32, PageID.773 Filed 09/19/18 Page 1 of 4
2

entered judgment in plaintiff’s favor. (Dkt. 25). On June 28, 2016, plaintiff filed a 

motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which was 

granted by the Court. (Dkt. 26, 28). 

On April 26, 2018, plaintiff then filed this motion for attorney fees under 42 

U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) in the amount of $8,710.50, subject to a refund of the 

previously paid amount under EAJA of $5,900. (Dkt. 29-1). The government filed 

a response, indicating that plaintiff’s motion is unopposed. (Dkt. 30). This matter 

has been referred to the undersigned for report and recommendation. (Dkt. 31).

Regarding the parties’ lack of contest, the Commissioner concurs with 

plaintiff that “the appropriate award amount under Section 206(b)(1) is $8,710.50, 

representing 25% of the retroactive benefit paid to Plaintiff.” (Dkt. 30). The 

Commissioner also agrees with plaintiff that on receipt of that amount, plaintiff’s 

counsel must refund $5,900 (representing the amount already paid to counsel under 

the EAJA) to plaintiff. Id. Thus, the Commissioner expressly states that she has 

no objection to a finding by this Court that plaintiff’s counsel’s request for fees 

under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in the amount of $8,710.50, subject to refund of the 

previous EAJA award, is reasonable. Id. 

II. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing agreement of the parties, the undersigned 

RECOMMENDS that (1) plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees be GRANTED; and 

Case 2:14-cv-14226-PDB-SDD ECF No. 32, PageID.774 Filed 09/19/18 Page 2 of 4
3

(2) the Court award $8,710.50 in attorney fees to plaintiff’s counsel, subject to the 

$5,900 refund from counsel to plaintiff. 

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and 

Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service, 

as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 

72.1(d). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right 

of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and 

Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections that raise some 

issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a 

party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health 

and Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of 

Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Local Rule 

72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.

Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” “Objection No. 2,” 

etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and 

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an 

objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the 

objections in length and complexity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), Local Rule 72.1(d). 

The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the 

same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,” “Response to Objection 

Case 2:14-cv-14226-PDB-SDD ECF No. 32, PageID.775 Filed 09/19/18 Page 3 of 4
4

No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it may 

rule without awaiting the response.

Date: September 19, 2018 s/Stephanie Dawkins Davis

Stephanie Dawkins Davis

United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on September 19, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing 

paper with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send electronic 

notification to all counsel of record.

s/Tammy Hallwood

Case Manager

(810) 341-7887

tammy_hallwood@mied.uscourts.gov

Case 2:14-cv-14226-PDB-SDD ECF No. 32, PageID.776 Filed 09/19/18 Page 4 of 4