Davis v. Saul

Opinion

5 * * *

6 RANDY BLAIR DAVIS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00402-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 ANDREW M. SAUL, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Plaintiff Randy Blair Davis brings this action requesting review of the final decision 12 of Acting Social Security Commissioner Andrew M. Saul. (ECF No. 1.) The parties have 13 since stipulated to an entry of judgment for Plaintiff (ECF Nos. 14,15), and on April 19, 14 2021, Plaintiff moved for attorney fees pursuant to section 206(b)(1) of the Social Security 15 Act and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1).1 (ECF No. 21 (“Motion”).) Before the Court is the Report 16 and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge 17 William G. Cobb (ECF No. 23), recommending the Court grant the Motion. The parties 18 had until May 10, 2021 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been 19 filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will grant 20 the Motion. 21 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 23 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 24 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 25 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 26 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 27 1 || recommendations is required if, but only one or both parties file objections to the 2 || findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 3 || Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 4 || clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 5 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 6 || satisfied Judge Cobb did not clearly err. Here, Judge Cobb recommends the Court grant 7 || the Motion because the requested contingency fee of $19,614.25 is within the 25% 8 || statutory cap set by § 406(b)(1).2 (ECF No. 23 at 2, 4.) After determining the requested 9 || fee was within the statutory cap, Judge Cobb further reasoned that the fee is reasonable 10 || under the four factors the Ninth Circuit set forth in Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142 (9th 11 || Cir. 2009). (/d. at 4-6.) The Court agrees with Judge Cobb. Having reviewed the R&R and 12 || the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 13 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14 || 23) is accepted and adopted in full. 15 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 21) is 16 || granted. 17 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs counsel is awarded $19,614.25 in fees. 18 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's counsel must refund $4,449.53 for fees awarded 19 || under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 20 DATED THIS 11" Day of May 2021. 21 — 22 f{ LQ. 23 MIRANDA MLO ——_—_——— CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25 26 27 2The parties have also stipulated that $4,449.53 must be refunded to Plaintiff under 28 || the Equal Access to Justice Act. (ECF Nos. 1% 19.)