Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 20, 2023

Lawyer v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:19-cv-05474-NSR-AEK
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Social SecurityFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Lawyer v. Commissioner: Judge Roman denied Lawyer’s motion for attorney fees and expenses after adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation.

Who this affects

Steve Lawyer’s request for attorney fees and expenses was denied, and the Commissioner was not ordered to pay those amounts.

What happened

In Lawyer v. Commissioner of Social Security, Steve Lawyer challenged the denial of his applications for Supplemental Security Income. The parties later agreed to send the matter back to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.

Lawyer then asked for attorney fees and expenses. The parties’ agreement stated that each side would pay its own fees, costs, and expenses, and neither party objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the request be denied.

Judge Nelson S. Roman reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, adopted it in full, and denied Lawyer’s motion for attorney fees and expenses.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Lawyer v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:19-cv-05474-NSR-AEK
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Apr. 20, 2023

Background

Steve Lawyer brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the Commissioner of Social Security’s administrative decision denying his applications for Supplemental Security Income. By a June 2, 2021 stipulation and order, the parties agreed to remand the matter to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.

On August 31, 2021, Lawyer moved for attorney fees and expenses under 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew Krause, who issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion be denied. Neither party filed a timely objection.

Court’s analysis

Because no timely objection was filed, the district court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error. The court explained that the parties’ stipulation provided in clear and unambiguous terms that each party would bear its own attorney fees, costs, and expenses. The court found no clear error in Magistrate Judge Krause’s analysis.

Ruling

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied Lawyer’s motion for attorney fees and expenses. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 27.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.