Wortman v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 5:2015cv00558 - Document 29 (N.D. Ohio 2020)
Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order: This Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error, hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as to the appropriateness of tolling. In accordance w ith that recommendation, together with this Court's finding as to the reasonableness of the rate, the Court hereby awards attorney fees in the amount of $15,108.00. Upon receipt of this sum, counsel for plaintiff will remit the previously awarded Equal Access to Justice Act Fee of $7,500.00 directly to plaintiff. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 6/25/20. (LC,S) re 28 , 25
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wortman v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Chad R. Wortman, Plaintiff, Vs. Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:15 CV 558 JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN Memorandum of Opinion and Order INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert (Doc. 28), recommending that the Court equitably toll plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (Doc. 25). In addition, the Court has reviewed the motion and finds that the amount of the fee request is reasonable. No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and attorney fees are awarded in the amount of $15,108.00. This represents 25% of the retroactive benefits awarded to plaintiff. Upon receipt of this sum, counsel for plaintiff will remit the previously awarded Equal Access to 1 Dockets.Justia.com Justice Act Fee of $7,500.00 directly to plaintiff. STANDARD OF REVIEW When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court reviews the case de novo. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides in pertinent part: The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. As stated in the Advisory Committee Notes, “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” In Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the Court held, “It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” DECISION This Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error, hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as to the appropriateness of tolling. In accordance with that recommendation, together with this Court’s finding as to the reasonableness of the rate, the Court hereby awards attorney fees in the amount of $15,108.00. Upon receipt of this sum, counsel for plaintiff will remit the previously awarded Equal Access to Justice Act Fee of $7,500.00 directly to plaintiff. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6/25/20 /s/ Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN United States District Judge Chief Judge 3
]]>
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.
