Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by

JASON STRYCHALSKI., Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

MICHAEL G. GOTSCH, SR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MICHAEL G. GOTSCH, SR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On September 3, 2021, the Court remanded this matter for further administrative proceedings. [DE 19]. On September 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Unopposed Motion for an Award of Attorney Fees under EAJA seeking an order granting Plaintiff $7, 599.20 for attorney fees. However, Plaintiff simultaneously filed a Bill of Costs for $420.22 [DE 22], which has already been taxed by the Clerk [DE 24]. The undersigned now issues this Report and Recommendation on a referral dated December 2, 2020. [DE 7].

While the Commissioner has not objected to the $7, 599.20 EAJA award sought by Plaintiff, Plaintiff's motion is extremely brief and provides no discussion of the requirements for EAJA fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1) or any documentation to support the award amount. Moreover, Plaintiff confuses matters by stating in his Motion that “[t]his award will settle all claims for attorney fees, expenses, and costs for EAJA under this suit” but also filing a separate Bill of Costs. [DE 19 at 1]. Without more explanation, the Court cannot confirm that the Section 2412(d)(1) requirements have been satisfied here or that the requested $7, 599.20 award includes or does not include the costs already taxed by the Clerk.

Therefore, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DENY WITHOUT

PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion [DE 21] and AFFORD Plaintiff an additional 14 days to renew his motion addressing the concerns discussed above.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this recommended disposition a party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and/or recommendations. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME WAIVES THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER.

SO ORDERED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Strychalski v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
(Jan 3, 2022)