Navratil v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
WENDY N., §
PLAINTIFF, §
§
V. § CASE NO. 3:24-CV-2614-S-BK
§
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
§
§
DEFENDANT. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, Plaintiff’s Amended Unopposed
Application for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, Doc. 27, is before the
Court for the issuance of findings and a recommended disposition. For the reasons stated herein,
the motion should be GRANTED.
Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), a court must award attorneys’ fees and
expenses if: (1) the claimant is a “prevailing party,” (2) the position of the United States was not
“substantially justified,” and (3) there are no special circumstances that make an award unjust.
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Sims v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 597, 599-600 (5th Cir. 2001). Nevertheless,
the award of attorneys’ fees must be reasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b).
Here, Plaintiff seeks an attorneys’ fee award of $10,000.00. Doc. 27 at 6. Having
considered Plaintiff’s motion, the fact that the parties agree to the amount sought [Doc. 27 at 6],
and the applicable law, the Court finds the request reasonable. Thus, Plaintiff’s Amended
Unopposed Application for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, Doc. 27,
should be GRANTED in the amount of $10,000.00.
Case 3:24-cv-02614-S-BK Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
EAJA awards are payable directly to the prevailing party, not the attorney. Astrue v.
Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 592-93 (2010). Accordingly, the award here should be made payable
directly to Plaintiff but sent in care of her attorney. Jackson v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 527, 531 n.11
(5th Cir. 2013).
SO RECOMMENDED on March 16, 2025.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner
provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file
specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to
which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate where in the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely
incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific.
Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual
findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district
court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d
1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending
the time to file objections to 14 days).
Case 3:24-cv-02614-S-BK Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>