Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

FRENCH v. COLVIN, 3:14-CV-138-PLR-HBG. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee Number: infdco20150721c44 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jul. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 20, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PAMELA L. REEVES , District Judge . This Social Security appeal is before the court for consideration of plaintiff's objections [R. 28], to the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge, H. Bruce Guyton [R. 27]. Magistrate Judge Guyton found that plaintiff failed to meet her burden of demonstrating the reasonableness of the hours requested by her counsel. Thus, Magistrate Judge Guyton recommended that plaintiff's requested EAJA fees be reduced b
More

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This Social Security appeal is before the court for consideration of plaintiff's objections [R. 28], to the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge, H. Bruce Guyton [R. 27]. Magistrate Judge Guyton found that plaintiff failed to meet her burden of demonstrating the reasonableness of the hours requested by her counsel. Thus, Magistrate Judge Guyton recommended that plaintiff's requested EAJA fees be reduced by a total of 4.2 hours, and that plaintiff's request for attorney fees be reduced from $6,395.40 to $5,455.65.

Plaintiff disagrees with the Magistrate Judge's finding that some of the hours submitted by her counsel were for non-compensable time. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that entries for copying, mailing, forwarding, printing, calendaring, filing, and file organization are strictly clerical in nature and non-compensable. See Rodriguez v. Astrue, 2012 WL 2905928 at *3 (reviewing emails, forwarding copies of court documents, and redocketing were non-compensable). Plaintiff has cited no case law to the contrary. In addition, plaintiff has not explained to the court's satisfaction why her counsel required 2.5 hours to review routine motions/orders for extensions of time to file pleadings.

After a careful review of the record, and plaintiff's objections, the court is in complete agreement with Magistrate Judge Guyton's recommendation that plaintiff's motion for EAJA fees be reduced. Accordingly, the court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). It is ORDERED, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, which the court adopts and incorporates into its ruling, that plaintiff's motion for attorney fees under the EAJA [R. 25] is GRANTED, as modified, and plaintiff is hereby awarded attorney fees in the amount of $5,455.65.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer