English-Eldell v. Saul

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

CORA E. ENGLISH-ELDELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-cv-160-TFM-B ) ANDREW M. SAUL, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On January 7, 2020, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23), to which no objections have been filed. After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 19) pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is hereby AWARDED fees in the amount of $4,205.55 under the Equal Access to Justice Act.1 DONE and ORDERED this the 28th day of January, 2020. /s/Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 On May 5, 2008, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732 (11th Cir. 2008) in which the Court unambiguously held that “attorney’s fees are awarded to the prevailing party, not to the prevailing party’s attorney.” Id. at 738. On June 14, 2010, the United States Supreme Court decided Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 177 L.Ed.2d 91 (2010) in which the Court also unambiguously held that attorney’s fees are awarded to the prevailing litigant – not to prevailing litigant’s attorney – and are therefore also subject to any offset for debts.