Bennett v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

AMANDA B.,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:20-cv-1036 v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL Magistrate Judge Litkovitz SECURITY,

Defendant.

ORDER Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Litkovitz’s Report and Recommendation (R&R, Doc. 29) advising the Court to grant Plaintiff Amanda B.’s Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 26). The Commissioner has not objected to the motion or the R&R, so the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See Williams v. Parikh, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2023 WL 8824845, at *3 (S.D. Ohio 2023). After reviewing the factual background, the law, and the billing records, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Litkovitz did not clearly err in her R&R. The Court also concludes that no purpose would be served by a separate opinion further explaining why the thoughtful and well- reasoned R&R is correct in its determination. The Court fully ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 29) for the reasons stated there. Accordingly, the Court (1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 26), (2) AWARDS Plaintiff’s Counsel, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), $5,055.50, and (3) ORDERS Plaintiff’s Counsel to remit $4,132.00 directly to Plaintiff Amanda B. upon receipt of this fee award. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002). SO ORDERED. \ August 7, 2024 DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE