Meeks v. Commissioner of Social Security

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan
DecidedMay 19, 2025
Docket1:24-cv-01001
StatusUnknown

This text of Meeks v. Commissioner of Social Security (Meeks v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Meeks v. Commissioner of Social Security, (W.D. Mich. 2025).

Opinion

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

KENDELL D. MEEKS,

Plaintiff, Hon. Jane M. Beckering v. Case No. 1:24-cv-1001 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. ________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act. (ECF No. 19). The Court recently remanded this matter for further administrative action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff’s counsel now seeks $4,200.00 in fees. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned recommends that the stipulation and proposed order be granted. Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), the prevailing party in an action seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security may apply for an award of fees and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). While a prevailing party is not entitled, as a matter of course, to attorney fees under the EAJA, see United States v. 0.376 Acres of Land, 838 F.2d 819, 825 (6th Cir. 1988), fees and costs are to be awarded unless the Court finds that the Commissioner’s position was “substantially justified” or that “special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Belanger v. Commissioner of Social Security, Case No. 2:20-cv-9, Opinion and Order, ECF No. 28 (W.D. Mich.) (finding that inflation and cost-of-living increases supported increasing the hourly EAJA rate from $175 to $204.75). In addition, the undersigned has reviewed the itemized statement of time (ECF No. 19-1) and finds that the 20.8 hours Plaintiff’s attorney spent on this case is reasonable. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that EAJA fees be awarded in the amount of four thousand two hundred dollars ($4,200.00). The awarded fees should be payable to Plaintiff, but

if Plaintiff does not owe a debt subject to offset and has transferred her right to said fees to her attorney, then payable to her attorney. CONCLUSION For the reasons articulated herein, the undersigned recommends that the Stipulation and Proposed Order for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice

Act (ECF No. 19) be granted. Specifically, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff be awarded four thousand two hundred dollars ($4,200.00) pursuant to the EAJA. OBJECTIONS to this report and recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within such time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Dated: May 19, 2025 /s/ Phillip J. Green PHILLIP J. GREEN United States Magistrate Judge

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

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)
United States v. 0.376 Acres of Land
838 F.2d 819 (Sixth Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Meeks v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meeks-v-commissioner-of-social-security-miwd-2025.