Bowermaster v. Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. Ohio

Bowermaster v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio·Decided January 31, 2020·No. 3:18-cv-00146·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON JAMMIE BOWERMASTER, Plaintiff, Case No.: 3:18-cv-146 vs. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman (Consent Case) Defendant. ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (“EAJA”) (DOC. 20); AND (2) AWARDING PLAINTIFF $4,139.00 IN EAJA FEES This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), requesting attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,139.00. Doc. 20. The Commissioner did not file any opposition to counsel’s motion for fees and the time for doing so has expired. Accordingly, the Court deems Plaintiff’s motion as unopposed. The undersigned has carefully considered Plaintiff’s unopposed motion and the attachments thereto, and the motion for attorney’s fees is now ripe for decision. EAJA provides for an award of attorney’s fees to a party who prevails in a civil action against the United States “when the position taken by the Government is not substantially justified and no special circumstances exist warranting a denial of fees.” Bryant v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 578 F.3d 443, 445 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A)). A party who obtains a Sentence Four remand is a prevailing party for EAJA purposes. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 301-02 (1993). EAJA fees are payable to the litigant. Astrue v. Ratliff, 586 U.S. 586, 589 (2010). Without dispute, Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this case for EAJA purposes and,

therefore, is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under EAJA. See Shalala, 509 U.S. at 301-02. Having reviewed the time sheet entries submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel and considering the nature of the work counsel performed in this case, the Court finds both the hourly fee and the time expended reasonable. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an EAJA fees award in the amount of $4,139.00 and, therefore: (1) Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for an EAJA fee award (doc. 20) is GRANTED; (2) Plaintiff is AWARDED the sum of $4,139.00 in EAJA fees; and (3) as no further matters remain pending for review, this case remains TERMINATED upon the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 31, 2020 s/ Michael J. Newman Michael J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON JAMMIE BOWERMASTER, Plaintiff, Case No.: 3:18-cv-146 vs. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman (Consent Case) Defendant. ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (“EAJA”) (DOC. 20); AND (2) AWARDING PLAINTIFF $4,139.00 IN EAJA FEES This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), requesting attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,139.00. Doc. 20. The Commissioner did not file any opposition to counsel’s motion for fees and the time for doing so has expired. Accordingly, the Court deems Plaintiff’s motion as unopposed. The undersigned has carefully considered Plaintiff’s unopposed motion and the attachments thereto, and the motion for attorney’s fees is now ripe for decision. EAJA provides for an award of attorney’s fees to a party who prevails in a civil action against the United States “when the position taken by the Government is not substantially justified and no special circumstances exist warranting a denial of fees.” Bryant v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 578 F.3d 443, 445 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A)). A party who obtains a Sentence Four remand is a prevailing party for EAJA purposes. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 301-02 (1993). EAJA fees are payable to the litigant. Astrue v. Ratliff, 586 U.S. 586, 589 (2010). Without dispute, Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this case for EAJA purposes and,

therefore, is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under EAJA. See Shalala, 509 U.S. at 301-02. Having reviewed the time sheet entries submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel and considering the nature of the work counsel performed in this case, the Court finds both the hourly fee and the time expended reasonable. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an EAJA fees award in the amount of $4,139.00 and, therefore: (1) Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for an EAJA fee award (doc. 20) is GRANTED; (2) Plaintiff is AWARDED the sum of $4,139.00 in EAJA fees; and (3) as no further matters remain pending for review, this case remains TERMINATED upon the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 31, 2020 s/ Michael J. Newman Michael J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

Bowermaster v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D. Ohio 2020).

Pincite

Bowermaster v. Commissioner of Social Security (Bowermaster v. Commissioner of Social Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related