Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kottwitz v. Colvin

United States District Court, S.D. New York

July 14, 2015

LISA MADELAINE KOTTWITZ, Soc. Sec. # XXX-XX-6852, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Respondent

For Lisa Madelaine Kottwitz, Plaintiff: Howard David Olinsky, Olinsky Law Group, Syracuse, NY.

For Commissioner of SS Carolyn W. Colvin, Defendant: Susan D. Baird, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY (St Andw's), New York, NY.

Page 146

ORDER

Paul G. Gardephe, United States District Judge.

On April 15, 2014, Plaintiff Lisa Kottwitz filed this action, seeking review of the final determination by the Commissioner of Social Security (the " Commissioner" ) denying her application for Social Security disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act (the " Act" ), 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. (Dkt. No. 2) On May 7, 2014, this Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn for a Report and Recommendation (" R& R" ). (Dkt. No. 4) On July 2, 2014, this Court entered the parties' stipulation and order that the action be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to section four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further administrative proceedings. (Dkt. No. 9) On the same day, the Clerk of Court entered judgment and remanded the case to the Commissioner. (Dkt. No. 10)

On August 21, 2014, Plaintiff Kottwitz moved for attorneys' fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (the " EAJA" ),

Page 147

28 U.S.C. § 2412, seeking $1,153.74 in attorney's fees, $40.00 for administrative work, and $14.43 in costs.[1] (Dkt. No. 12) On January 16, 2015, Judge Netburn issued an R& R recommending that this Court deny Kottwitz's motion for attorney's fees but grant her request for costs. (R& R (Dkt. No. 22) at 4-7) Neither party objected to the R& R. For the reasons discussed below, the Court adopts the R& R in its entirety.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation " may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court " may adopt those portions of the report to which no 'specific, written objection' is made, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings and conclusions set forth in those sections are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Adams v. New York State Dep't of Educ., 855 F.Supp.2d 205, 206 (S.D.N.Y.2012) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)).

DISCUSSION

In her January 16, 2015 R& R, Judge Netburn recommends that this Court deny Kottwitz's motion as to attorney's fees, because (1) Plaintiff's counsel failed to maintain contemporaneous time records; and (2) attorney's fees may not be awarded for clerical tasks. (R& R (Dkt. No. 22) at 4-7) The R& R also recommends that the Commissioner be directed to pay $14.43 in costs. (Id. at 7) In her R& R, Magistrate Judge Netburn also informed the parties that they had fourteen days fro service of the R& R to file any objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that failure to do so could result in waiver of review. (Id. at 7-8)

Neither party has objected to the R& R. Accordingly, Plaintiff has waived her right to review by this Court. See Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (" Where parties receive clear notice of the consequences, failure timely to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation operates as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate's decision." ); Wagner & Wagner, LLP v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C., 596 F.3d 84, 92 (2d Cir. 2010) (" [A] party waives appellate review of a decision in a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation if the party fails to file timely objections designating the particular issue." )

This Court has nonetheless reviewed Judge Netburn's well-reasoned R& R and is satisfied that " there is no clear error on the face of the record." Nelson v. Smith,618 F.Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (citations omitted). As Judge Netburn explains fully in her R& R, because Plaintiff's counsel did not maintain ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.