REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

GREGORY J. KELLY, Magistrate Judge.

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:

On March 1, 2017, judgment was entered reversing and remanding this case to the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc. No. 20. On May 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorneys' Fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (the "EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (the "Motion"). Doc. No. 21. In the Motion, Plaintiff requests the Court award attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,754.17. Id. at 1. Plaintiff also requests an award of costs in the amount of $400. Id. The Motion is unopposed. Id.

In the Motion and attachments, counsel for Plaintiff, Richard A. Culbertson, states that his law firm performed the following work:

Id. at 2, 12-13. The Motion states that the hourly rates requested do not exceed the statutory caps adjusted for inflation. Id. at 8-10. Furthermore, the Commissioner has agreed to pay EAJA fees directly to counsel pursuant to Plaintiff's retainer agreement (Doc. No. 21-1) so long as it is determined that Plaintiff does not owe a debt to the United States Government. Doc. No. 21 at 2-3.

In Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2524-30 (2010), the Supreme Court held that EAJA fees are awarded to the "prevailing party" or the litigant rather than to the litigant's attorney. However, the Supreme Court noted that nothing in the statute or its holding affects the prevailing party's contractual right to assign his or her right to receive the fee to an attorney. Id. at 2528-29. An assignment, however, must comply with the requirements in 31 U.S.C. § 3727(b) in order to be valid. See Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. U.S., 5 Cl. Ct. 142, 145 (Cl. Ct. 1984).

Specifically, Section 3727(b) provides that:

31 U.S.C. § 3727(b) (emphasis added). Thus, an assignment made prior to the award of attorneys' fees necessarily violates the Anti-Assignment Act because the claim has not been allowed, the amount of the claim has not been decided, and a warrant for the claim has not been issued. Id. Here, the assignment does not satisfy the Anti-Assignment Act because the assignment occurred prior to the award of any attorneys' fees. Huntley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., Case No. 6:12-cv-613-Orl-37TBS, 2013 WL 5970717, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2013). Accordingly, the Court concludes that the award of EAJA attorneys' fees should be made to Plaintiff as the prevailing party. Id.

In the Motion, Plaintiff requests an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,754.17. Doc. No. 21 at 1. In compliance with Ratliff, the undersigned concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to $3,754.17 in attorneys' fees and that such fees are reasonable. Plaintiff is also entitled to $400 in costs. See Davis v. Apfel, 6:98-CV-651-ORL-22A, 2000 WL 1658575, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2000) (noting that "[t]he EAJA also authorizes the award of `costs' and `expenses'").

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Motion (Doc. No. 21) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

NOTICE TO PARTIES

A party has fourteen days from this date to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation's factual findings and legal conclusions. A party's failure to file written objections waives that party's right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual finding or legal conclusion the district judge adopts from the Report and Recommendation. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to expedite the final disposition of this matter, if the parties have no objection to this report and recommendation, they may promptly file a joint notice of no objection.