Oliver v. King

1 / 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
DANA O.,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00046
MICHELLE A. KING, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
On February 11, 2026, pursuant to sentence five of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the
Commissioner’s determination that Plaintiff Dana O.’s application for supplemental
security income benefits be denied was reversed and remanded for further consideration.
(D.E. 19). The District Court adopted the undersigned’s Memorandum and
Recommendation in its entirety (D.E. 18), GRANTING Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment (D.E. 11), DENYING the Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for
summary judgment (D.E. 16), REVERSING the Commissioner’s denial of disability
benefits, and REMANDING for further consideration. (D.E. 19).
Now pending is Dana O.’s motion for attorney’s fees brought pursuant to the
Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (D.E. 21). The
Commissioner is unopposed to the motion. For the reasons discussed further below, it is
recommended that the motion (D.E. 21) be GRANTED.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 11, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00046 Document 22 Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2 / 3
The undersigned specifically concludes that Dana O. is the prevailing party, the
position of the United States was not substantially justified, and there are no special
circumstances that make an award of fees unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Moreover,
the 31.4 hours spent by counsel, the cost-of-living adjustment, and the $7,051.74 in fees
requested (D.E. 21-1) are appropriate and reasonable.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the application for EAJA fees (D.E. 21) be
GRANTED. It is further recommended that Dana O.’s attorney of record be awarded the
sum of $7,051.74 in attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA. In accordance with Astrue v.
Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 591-98 (2010), the attorney fee award should be made payable to
Plaintiff, Dana O., and mailed in care of her attorney, Lindsey M. Sbrolla.
Respectfully recommended on May 11, 2026.
____________________________
Julie K. Hampton
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00046 Document 22 Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 / 3
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to
each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of
the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the
United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within
FOURTEEN (14) 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. Douglass v. United Servs.
Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).
Case 2:25-cv-00046 Document 22 Filed 05/11/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3