(SS) Carter v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2007cv00045 - Document 59 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THE COURT GRANT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on December 23, 2010. (Lira, I)

Download PDF
(SS) Carter v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 59 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 MILDRED CARTER, 6 7 8 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00045-LJO-SMS Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THE COURT GRANT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, 9 Defendant. 10 (Doc. 48) / 11 12 Plaintiff Mildred Carter moved the Court to grant net attorneys’ fees of $9,612.52 under 13 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Defendant Commissioner took no position regarding Plaintiff’s request. 14 Having reviewed the motion and its supporting documentation, as well as the case file, on 15 November 19, 2010, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court award the requested 16 attorneys’ fees. The Findings and Recommendations were served on both parties and contained 17 notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. No objections have been filed 18 with the Court. 19 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the undersigned has 20 reviewed this case de novo. Having carefully considered Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds 21 the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper legal analysis. 22 Accordingly, the Findings and Recommendations, filed November 19, 2020, are hereby 23 adopted in full. The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees of $17,250.25, 24 net of the previously awarded fee of $7637.73 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), for 25 a net amount of $9612.52. 26 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Dated: b9ed48 December 23, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.