1 – OPINION AND ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

KATHRYN SCHROEDER, 

 No. 6:15-cv-00771-SB 

 Plaintiff, 

 OPINION AND ORDER 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

MOSMAN, J., 

On January 23, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and 

Recommendation (“F&R”) [35], recommending that I GRANT in part Ms. Schroeder’s 

Application for EAJA Fees [31] and award attorney fees in the amount of $4,378.14. Ms. 

Schroeder filed her objections to the F&R [37] on February 6, 2017, and the Commissioner 

responded [38] on February 21, 2017. 

DISCUSSION 

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court 
2 – OPINION AND ORDER 

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Relying on previous cases from this district, Judge Beckerman recommends that Ms. 

Schroeder’s requested fee amount of $8,538.03 be reduced to $4,378.14. Judge Beckerman 

relies, in part, on the fact that Ms. Schroeder rejected the Commissioner’s initial settlement offer 

to remand the case to the agency for further proceedings. Eventually, following Judge 

Beckerman’s original F&R [25] and my adoption in part of that F&R [29], the case was 

remanded for further proceedings, but Ms. Schroeder did not obtain an immediate award of 

benefits. Thus, as Judge Beckerman notes, she failed to advance her position by rejecting the 

Commissioner’s initial settlement offer and continuing to litigate the case. 

In her objections to the current F&R, Ms. Schroeder argues that the “standard for a 

reduction of benefits is whether the request is reasonable, not whether every hour spent resulted

in any enhancement of the position.” But Ms. Schroeder fails to recognize that in determining 

whether a desired EAJA fee amount is reasonable, a district court is “required to consider the 

results achieved on appeal.” Atkins v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 986, 989 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Hensley 

v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983) (noting that when a plaintiff has achieved only partial 

success, “the product of hours reasonably expended on the litigation as a whole times a 

reasonable hourly rate may be an excessive amount”). This is true even if plaintiff’s arguments 

are “nonfrivolous, and raised in good faith.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436. As such, Judge 
3 – OPINION AND ORDER 

Beckerman’s recommendation to reduce the requested fee amount is proper because Ms. 

Schroeder failed to obtain an immediate award of benefits after rejecting the Commissioner’s 

initial settlement offer. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, I agree with Judge Beckerman’s recommendation and ADOPT 

the F&R [35] as my own opinion. I GRANT in part Ms. Schroeder’s Application for EAJA Fees 

[31] and award attorney fees in the amount of $4,378.14 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this ______ day of April, 2017. 

____________________________

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge 

12th

 /s/ Michael W. Mosman