Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

[5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Juana Moore, No. CV-22-00550-TUC-RM 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, [13] 14 Defendant. 15 On November 16, 2023, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Rateau issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (Doc. 27), recommending that this Court reverse the decision of the 17 Commissioner of Social Security and remand this matter to the agency for further 18 administrative proceedings. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were 19 filed. 20 On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney Fees. (Doc. 28.) 21 Plaintiff requests an award of $7,102.97 in attorney fees and $402 in costs under the 22 Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (a), (d). (Id.) Plaintiff supports 23 the Motion with timesheets reflecting attorney and paralegal work performed on this 24 case. (Doc. 28-2.) The Commissioner does not object to the Motion. (Doc. 29.) 25 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 26 magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 27 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 28 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is 1 filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 2 in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 3 advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 4 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the 5 district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, 6 CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286 , at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for 7 clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation). 8 The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation, 9 the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Rateau’s 10 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court will accept and adopt the Report 11 and Recommendation. The Court finds Plaintiff’s requested attorney’s fees reasonable 12 and permissible under the EAJA, and will accordingly grant Plaintiff’s unopposed 13 Motion for Attorney Fees. 14 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) is accepted 15 and adopted in full. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment 17 (Doc. 24) is granted. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed, 18 and this matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings 19 consistent with the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27). The Clerk of Court shall 20 enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 21 . . . . 22 . . . . 23 . . . . 24 . . . . 25 . . . . 26 . . . . 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 28) 2|| is granted. Plaintiff Juana Moore is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $7,102.97 || under the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d), and costs in the amount of $402.00 under 28 4] U.S.C. § 1920. If Plaintiff has no debt subject to offset under the United States 5 || Department of the Treasury’s Offset Program, payment shall be made via check made 6|| payable to Plaintiffs attorney. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 591-98 (2010). If 7\|| Plaintiff has a debt subject to offset, then the check for any remaining funds after offset 8 || of the debt shall be made to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's attorney’s office. This 9|| award is made without prejudice to the rights of Plaintiff's counsel to seek Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406 (b), subject to the savings clause 11 || provisions of the EAJA. 12 Dated this 23rd day of February, 2024. [14] 15 — 4 Pf’ □□ 16 —D J tigi □ □□ Honorable Rostsiary □□□□□□□ 17 United States District □□□□□ [28] _3-