UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

JOSE ACOSTA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:18-cv-2214-Orl-22DCI

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the following motion: MOTION: Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to

(b)(1) (Doc. 27) FILED: December 14, 2020

THEREON it is Recommended that the motion be GRANTED. Plaintiff’s counsel moves for an award of attorney fees pursuant to

(b)(1). Doc. 27 (the Motion).1 Plaintiff’s counsel states that following the Court’s reversal of the Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits and remand of the case for further administrative proceedings, Plaintiff was awarded $27,126.00 in past-due benefits. Doc. 27 at 2. A quarter of the total amount of benefits awarded is $6,781.50. See

(b)(1) (recovery of such fees under this section may not exceed 25% of the total past-due benefits). But

1 The Motion is unopposed. Doc. 27 at 3. Plaintiff’s counsel now seeks $2,519.30 in attorney fees pursuant to § 406(b). Doc. 27 at 2. Plaintiff’ counsel states that the fees he seeks to collect includes a deduction of the attorney fees ($4,262.20) previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Id. at 2; see Jackson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

(11th Cir. 2010) (holding that counsel may effectuate the refund of a smaller EAJA award by either refunding the amount awarded under the EAJA to the client or deducting that amount from counsel’s request for § 406(b) fees). Upon review, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff’ s counsel’s request for $2,519.30 in attorney fees does not run afoul of the limit imposed by § 406(b) and is reasonable under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the Motion (Doc. 27) be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s counsel be authorized to charge and collect from Plaintiff $2,519.30 in attorney fees. NOTICE TO PARTIES A party has fourteen days from this date to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation’s factual findings and legal conclusions. A party’s failure to file written objections waives that party’s right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual finding or legal conclusion the district judge adopts from the Report and Recommendation. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1. Recommended in Orlando, Florida on December 14, 2020. Copies furnished to: DANIEL C. IRICK Presiding District Judge UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party Courtroom Deputy