MANNING

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Defendant. /

OPINION AND ORDER1

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 44). Judge McCoy recommends granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff Kevin Manning’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. (Doc. 39). He recommends awarding $4,923.41 in attorney’s fees, which is reduction of $1,614.69 from Plaintiff seeks. Because of the reduction, Plaintiff objects to the R&R. The Government has not responded, and the time to do so has ended. So the R&R is ripe for review.

45 at 1). Just the opposite. The R&R awarded 0.3 to reflect the time taken to draft the complaint. The reduction was for the non-compensable, clerical tasks related to the civil cover sheet and letter. Nor does the 0.5 charge “reflect[] only the time spent drafting the complaint,” as Plaintiff asserts. (Doc. 45 at 2 (emphasis added)). The Court is hard-pressed to accept the assertion when the billing entry for the 0.5 clearly included drafting the civil cover sheet and letter to clerk. Second, the R&R recommends reducing 4.7 hours of paralegals’ time on reviewing files from the referral source and the federal court contract. Plaintiff says such tasks were not clerical and compensable. Although Plaintiff cites a supporting case, the R&R cites a case that reached the opposite conclusion. Compare Torres v. Kijakazi, No. 6:20-cv-1471, 2022 WL 6163063, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2022) (declining payment for reviewing files from a referral source),

with Dewees v. Acting Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:21-cv-328, 2022 WL 1406667, at *5-6 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2022) (granting hours for reviewing the FDC packet but only after supplemental briefing that showed the review required legal skills). The discrepancy is understandable since awarding attorney’s fees has discretionary elements. The Court thus agrees with the reduction based on the record here and overrules Plaintiff’s objection. Third, the R&R recommends reducing the time spent on briefing by 9.7 hours. (Doc. 44 at 10). Plaintiff has requested 39.7 hours because the procedural history was complex and different attorneys represented him during the administrative process. (Doc. 45 at 3-4). Plaintiff also questions how the Magistrate Judge can jive awarding him less hours for attorney’s fees than he did in his first (and related) Social Security appeal filed a few years earlier. Plaintiff’s arguments are nonstarters. Because the Commissioner agreed to remand this case, the parties never filed a joint memorandum (but they did file one in the prior case). Even so Plaintiff should be compensated for the time spent preparing a joint memorandum, but it should not be more than the typical thirty hours. See Huntley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:12-cv- 6138, 2018 WL 5970717, at *2 n.1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2018) (collecting cases in which “an award in excess of thirty hours [wa]s uncommon”). The Court thus agrees with the R&R’s reduction and overrules Plaintiffs last objection. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 44) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the findings incorporated here. 2. Plaintiff Kevin Manning’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Justice Act (Doc. 39) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 3. Plaintiff is AWARDED $4,923.41 in attorney’s fees. 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter an appropriate judgment for fees in Plaintiffs favor. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 3, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record