(SS) Jeffries v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2023cv00955 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 25 Findings and Recommendations and Granting Plaintiff's 22 Motion for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 06/04/2024. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS JEFFRIES, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security1, 15 Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-0955 JLT GSA ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (Docs. 22, 25) Thomas Jeffries seeks an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,603.61 pursuant to the 17 18 Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Doc. 22.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff was 19 a prevailing. (Doc. 25 at 3.) The magistrate judge also observed the Commissioner did not argue the 20 position on appeal was justified, because the Commissioner did not oppose the fee request. (See id.) 21 Thus, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff was entitled to a fee award. (Id.) The magistrate judge 22 determined the fees requested were reasonable, and recommended the motion be granted. (Id. at 4-5.) 23 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and notified them that any 24 objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 25 at 5.) The Court advised the parties that “failure to file 25 objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson 26 v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014), Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) 27 28 Martin O’Malley became the Commissioner of Social Security on December 20, 2023. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Martin O’Malley is substituted as the defendant in this suit. 1 1 1 2 Neither party filed objections, and the time to do so has passed. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the case. 3 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 4 supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated May 17, 2024 (Doc. 25) are ADOPTED in full. 6 7 2. Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. 22) is GRANTED. 8 3. Plaintiff is AWARDED fees in the amount of $6,603.61 pursuant to the EAJA. 9 4. If the Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, 10 the Government SHALL issue the fee award directly to Plaintiff’s Counsel, Jonathan O. 11 Pena, pursuant to the Assignment Agreement executed by Plaintiff and his counsel. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 4, 2024 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.