IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

R.J.E., : : Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 5:25-cv-152-CAR-CHW : COMMISSIONER OF : Social Security Appeal SOCIAL SECURITY : : Defendant. : :

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is a motion for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”),

, following this Court’s order remanding the case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of

(g). (Docs. 14–16). It is RECOMMENDED that the motion (Doc. 16) be GRANTED. Plaintiff asks for attorney’s fees in the amount of $11,595.61 for 46.50 hours expended in litigating this case and costs in the amount of $405.00. (Docs. 16-3; 16-4). The Commissioner does not oppose Plaintiff’s request (Docs. 16; 16-3, p. 4), the requested hours appear to be within a reasonable range, and the rate requested by Plaintiff1 appears to comport with this Court’s CPI formula established in Hartage v. Astrue, No. 4:09-cv-48,

(M.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 2011). It is accordingly RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for EAJA fees (Doc. 16) be GRANTED, and that Plaintiff be awarded $11,595.61 in attorney’s fees and costs in the amount

1 The rate requested by Plaintiff is $256.54 per hour for work performed in 2025. (Docs. 16-3, ¶ 11; 16-4). This amounts to $11,929.11 for total work performed, however, Plaintiff indicates the parties agree to total fees of $11,595.61. (Doc. 16-3, p. 4). of $405.00. This award should be made payable to Plaintiff directly. Astrue v. Ratliff,

(2010). If, however, the United States Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, the Commissioner may accept Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA attorney’s fees (Doc. 16-5) and pay the awarded fees directly to Plaintiff’s counsel.

OBJECTIONS Pursuant to

(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Any objection is limited in length to TWENTY (20) PAGES. See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4. The District Judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. All other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error. The parties are further notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1) waives the right to

challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” SO RECOMMENDED, this 15th day of September, 2025.

s/ Charles H. Weigle Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge