JENNETTE LYNN STANCY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

E.D. California

JENNETTE LYNN STANCY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

DecidedSeptember 10, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-00604

StatusUnknown

This text of JENNETTE LYNN STANCY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY (JENNETTE LYNN STANCY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

JENNETTE LYNN STANCY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JENNETTE LYNN STANCY, 12 Plaintiff, No. 2:23-cv-00604-TLN-DMC 13 v. 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ORDER SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Jennette Lynn Stancy (“Plaintiff”), who is proceeding with retained counsel, 18 brought this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 20 to Eastern District of California local rules. 21 On June 11, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations which were 22 served on the parties, and which contained notice that objections could be filed within fourteen 23 (14) days. This deadline has passed, and no objections have been filed. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 28 1 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 2 the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 11, 2025, (ECF No. 23), are ADOPTED in 5 full; 6 2. Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees, (ECF No. 21), is GRANTED and counsel 7 is awarded fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in the amount of $27,861.00, paid to 8 counsel by the Commissioner of Social Security out of past-due benefits awarded to 9 Plaintiff and withheld by the agency, to the extent such benefits have not already been 10 paid to Plaintiff, and to the extent counsel has not already been paid by the agency out of 11 amounts withheld; and 12 3. Counsel is directed to reimburse to Plaintiff $7,500.00 previously paid to counsel under 13 the Equal Access to Justice Act. 14 Date: September 9, 2025 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JENNETTE LYNN STANCY, 12 Plaintiff, No. 2:23-cv-00604-TLN-DMC 13 v. 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ORDER SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Jennette Lynn Stancy (“Plaintiff”), who is proceeding with retained counsel, 18 brought this action for judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 20 to Eastern District of California local rules. 21 On June 11, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations which were 22 served on the parties, and which contained notice that objections could be filed within fourteen 23 (14) days. This deadline has passed, and no objections have been filed. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 27 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 28 1 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 2 the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 11, 2025, (ECF No. 23), are ADOPTED in 5 full; 6 2. Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees, (ECF No. 21), is GRANTED and counsel 7 is awarded fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in the amount of $27,861.00, paid to 8 counsel by the Commissioner of Social Security out of past-due benefits awarded to 9 Plaintiff and withheld by the agency, to the extent such benefits have not already been 10 paid to Plaintiff, and to the extent counsel has not already been paid by the agency out of 11 amounts withheld; and 12 3. Counsel is directed to reimburse to Plaintiff $7,500.00 previously paid to counsel under 13 the Equal Access to Justice Act. 14 Date: September 9, 2025 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

JENNETTE LYNN STANCY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jennette-lynn-stancy-v-commissioner-of-social-security-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack