(SS) Howell v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 KIMBERLY JOYCE HOWELL, Case No. 1:25-cv-0135 JLT CDB (SS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO Commissioner of Social Security1, JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) 15 Defendant. (Doc. 16) 16 17 Kimberly Joyce Howell sought judicial review of the administrative decision denying her 18 application for benefits. (Doc. 1.) The parties stipulated to a voluntary remand for further 19 proceedings. On April 4, 2025, the Court approved the stipulation, remanded the case pursuant to 20 sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff. (Docs. 12, 13.) 21 Plaintiff now seeks attorney’s fees as a prevailing party pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice 22 Act. (Doc. 14.) The Commissioner does not oppose the request. (Doc. 15.) 23 The magistrate judge evaluated the fees requested and found the amount was appropriate 24 based upon the hourly rate requested, the tasks performed, and the results obtained by counsel. 25 (Doc. 16 at 2-3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court grant the motion in the 26 requested amount of $1,070.32. (Id. at 3.) 27 1 Frank Bisignano became the Commissioner of Social Security on May 6, 2025. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) 28 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court substitutes Mr. Bisignano as the defendant in this suit. 1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 2 | any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 16 at 3.) The Court advised the parties that the 3 | “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 4 | Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Plaintiff nor the 5 | Commissioner filed objections, and the time to do so has passed. 6 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the case. 7 | Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 8 || Recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendation issued on July 22, 2025 (Doc. 16) are 10 ADOPTED in full. 11 2. Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 14) is 13 3. Plaintiff is AWARDED fees in the amount of $1,070.32. 14 4. Defendant SHALL pay the amount to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the 15 Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the 16 Government shall cause the payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be made 17 directly to Plaintiff's counsel. 18 2 | Dated: _ August 7, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28