Twylight Buchanan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 15-5137 (6th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0670n.06 Case No. 15-5137 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED TWYLIGHT BUCHANAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Defendant-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Oct 01, 2015 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BEFORE: BATCHELDER, ROGERS, and COOK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Twylight Buchanan, through her attorney Wolodymyr Cybriwsky, sought fees for 39.4 hours of work at a rate of $150 per hour pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The district court found the request unreasonable and awarded a fee for 38.2 hours at the statutory rate of $125 per hour. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). It awarded the fee directly to Buchanan, despite her agreement assigning to her attorney any fees awarded. The district court disregarded the assignment as violative of the AntiAssignment Act (AAA), 31 U.S.C. § 3727. Buchanan, through Cybriwsky, appeals. Cybriwsky, in his briefing, appears particularly aggrieved by the district court’s denial of his fees request for hourly rates ($175 and $150) that he claims this circuit approved in Turner v. Case No. 15-5137 Twylight Buchanan v. Commissioner of Social Security Commissioner of Social Security, 680 F.3d 721 (6th Cir. 2012). But regardless of any numeric mistake by the district court as argued by Cybriwsky, what matters—as the district court properly observed—is that Turner itself offered no discussion supporting the payment of fees at any hourly rate. The district court’s order filed October 14, 2014 (and its order of December 8, 2014 denying reconsideration) diligently set forth the undisputed facts and the governing law. Because this court’s issuance of a full opinion would be duplicative and serve no jurisprudential purpose, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court in its October 14, 2014 order. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.