Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

CHAMBERS v. ASTRUE, 11-1324-HGB-SS. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana Number: infdco20120516b57 Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 23, 2012
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SALLY SHUSHAN, Magistrate Judge. The plaintiff, Coester R. Chambers ("Chambers"), filed a complaint for judicial review, pursuant to Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act (the "Act"), of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying his claim for benefits. Rec. doc. 1. Chambers filed a motion for summary judgment. Rec. doc. 12. On December 22, 2011, the defendant, Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security Administra
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

SALLY SHUSHAN, Magistrate Judge.

The plaintiff, Coester R. Chambers ("Chambers"), filed a complaint for judicial review, pursuant to Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act (the "Act"), of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying his claim for benefits. Rec. doc. 1. Chambers filed a motion for summary judgment. Rec. doc. 12. On December 22, 2011, the defendant, Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"), consented to the remand for further administrative action. Rec. doc. 16. It was recommended that the action be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Rec. doc. 17. The District Judge remanded the action. Rec. doc. 18.

Chambers filed a motion for attorney fees which was referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge. Rec. docs. 20 and 21. The Commissioner did not file an opposition and reports that he has no opposition. The application will be treated as unopposed and it has merit.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Chambers be awarded attorneys' fees of $3,837.50 under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.

OBJECTIONS

A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within fourteen (14) calendar days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

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