Barrett v. Colvin, 3:15-CV-88-MSH. (2016)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20160322a13
Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2016
Summary: ORDER STEPHEN HYLES , Magistrate Judge . Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. (ECF No. 19.) Counsel filed his motion for fees on March 2, 2016, requesting $3,729.30 for 19.6 attorney work hours at a rate calculated for the date that the time was billed. Cates Aff. 1, 5, ECF No. 19-2. The Commissioner filed a Response wherein she does not object to the request for or amount of fees. Def.'s Resp. 1, ECF No. 20.
Summary: ORDER STEPHEN HYLES , Magistrate Judge . Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. (ECF No. 19.) Counsel filed his motion for fees on March 2, 2016, requesting $3,729.30 for 19.6 attorney work hours at a rate calculated for the date that the time was billed. Cates Aff. 1, 5, ECF No. 19-2. The Commissioner filed a Response wherein she does not object to the request for or amount of fees. Def.'s Resp. 1, ECF No. 20. ..
More
ORDER
STEPHEN HYLES, Magistrate Judge.
Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. (ECF No. 19.) Counsel filed his motion for fees on March 2, 2016, requesting $3,729.30 for 19.6 attorney work hours at a rate calculated for the date that the time was billed. Cates Aff. ¶¶ 1, 5, ECF No. 19-2. The Commissioner filed a Response wherein she does not object to the request for or amount of fees. Def.'s Resp. 1, ECF No. 20.
Given that there is no objection to the amount of fees, number of hours requested, or hourly rate, and that the Court finds the request reasonable, Plaintiff's request for fees in the amount of $3,729.30 is granted. These fees should be paid directly to the Plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 591-93 (2010); Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732, 735 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining that the EAJA "unambiguously directs the award of attorney's fees to the party who incurred those fees and not to the party's attorney").
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
