Case Information
*1
AIKEN, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") on 5/19/2017 (doc. 26) recommending awarding plaintiff cost and fees in the amount of$6,901.45. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's F&R, the district court must make a de novo dete1mination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); lvfcDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business i\!fachines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).
*2 Plaintiff filed timely objections to the F&R (doc. 28), and the Commissioner has filed a response (doc. 29). Thus, I review the F&R de nova.
This dispute arises out of plaintiffs application for cost and fees in the amount of $7,672.17 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA") (doc. 22). The Commissioner does not dispute that plaintiff is entitled to EAJA fees, but she rather objects to the full amount of fees requested in the application. At issue are 3.8 hours that plaintiffs counsel spent drafting plaintiffs objections to Magistrates Judge Clarke's first F&R (doc. 16), recommending the case be reversed and remanded for fmiher proceedings. In that F&R Magistrate Judge Clarke found merit in some of plaintiffs assignments of error, and he rightly rejected others. Plaintiff filed objections to the F&R regarding the recommendations which were unfavorable to her. I adopted the F&R in its entirety. (doc. 20)
Now plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Clark's F&R on her application for EAJA fees which recommended granting the application for the amount of $6,094.45, rather than the $7,672.17 requested. I find no e11'or contained in Magistrate Judge Clarke's present F&R, and adopt the thorough analysis contained in his recommendation.
In her objections, Plaintiff contends that despite the favorable recommendation in the original F&R and lack of objection from the Commissioner, in my review of the F&R, I could have chosen to not adopt the F&R and affirm the decision of the commissioner. Moreover, plaintiff argues that, had I done so, she would have been barred from appealing that ruling to the Ninth Circuit Comi of Appeals. Thus she argues, she had to file objections or waive her right to appeal an unfavorable ruling from this Court. As noted in the F&R, this concern is overstated. The failure to object to a conclusion of law does not constitute a waiver of appeal. Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1990). The question of whether an administrative PAGE 2 -ORDER
agency's find of fact is supported by substantial evidence is not a factual issue; it is a question of law. Id; See also, Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394-95 (9th Cir. 1991); Greenhow v. Secretmy of Health & Human Services, 863 F. 2d 633, 635 (9th Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds.
Therefore, I adopt Magistrate Judge Clark's F&R (doc. 26) in its entirety. Plaintiffs application for costs and attorney fees pursuant to the EAJA (doc. 22) is granted in the amount of $6,901.45.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this i1~ay ofNovember, 2017.
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge