Williams v. Social Security Administration

District Court, D. New Mexico·Decided July 15, 2025·No. 1:20-cv-01313·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

JONATHAN WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. Civ. No. 20-1313 JCH/SCY

FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough’s June 16, 2025 Proposed Findings And Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”). Doc. 38. In that PFRD, Judge Yarbrough recommends that the Court grant in part the application for 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) fees in an amount of $18,300. Judge Yarbrough notified the parties that they had 14 days from service of the PFRD to file any objections to the PFRD. Id. at 5. The parties have not filed any objections to the PFRD, thereby waiving their right to review of the proposed disposition. See United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, upon review of the PFRD, the Court concurs with Judge Yarbrough’s findings and recommendation. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. The Court ADOPTS Judge Yarbrough’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (Doc. 38); 2. Plaintiff’s Motion For Attorney’s Fees Pursuant To 42 USC 406(B) (Doc. 35) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; and 3. The Court hereby authorizes $18,300 in attorney fees for legal services rendered in the United States District Court, to be paid from the claimant’s past-due benefits. Counsel must refund to Plaintiff any EAJA fees that were not previously garnished under the Treasury Offset Program. SO ORDERED.

M0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Williams v. Social Security Administration, (D.N.M. 2025).

Williams v. Social Security Administration (Williams v. Social Security Administration) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. 2121 East 30th Street
73 F.3d 1057 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)