UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 24, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

ELI TREVINO, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00177 § MARTIN J O'MALLEY, et al., § § Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION On July 18, 2025, pursuant to sentence four of

(g), the Commissioner’s determination that Plaintiff Trevino’s application for disability benefits be denied was vacated and Plaintiff’s case was remanded to the Social Security Administration for further consideration of his application for benefits. (D.E. 16). Now pending is Trevino’s motion for attorney’s fees brought pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”),

(d). (D.E. 18). The Commissioner is unopposed to the motion. (D.E. 19). For the reasons discussed further below, it is recommended that the motion (D.E. 18) be GRANTED. The undersigned specifically concludes that Trevino 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.

(d)(1)(A). Moreover, the 36.9 hours spent by counsel and the $8,389.71 in fees requested are appropriate and 1 / 3 reasonable. Accordingly, it is recommended that the application for EAJA fees (D.E. 18) be GRANTED. It is further recommended that Travino’s attorney of record be awarded the sum of $8,389.71 in attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA. In accordance with Astrue v. Ratliff,

(2010), the attorney fee award should be made payable to Plaintiff, Eli Trevino, and mailed in care of his attorney, Lindsey M. Sbrolla.

Respectfully submitted on October 24, 2025.

Julie C \ SA United States Magistrate Judge

2/3

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),

(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,

(5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).

3 / 3