Haddock v Social Security Administration

Filing 17

ORDER: GRANTING 16 the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees. See full written order. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 07/26/17. (RT, ilcd)

Download PDF
E-FILED Wednesday, 26 July, 2017 09:51:42 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND DIVISION CONNIE SUE HADDOCK, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 4:16-cv-04200-JEH COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINSTRATION, Defendant. Order The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s Motion for EAJA Fees. (D. 16). 1 The deadline for the Defendant to respond to said motion (July 24, 2017) has passed. Accordingly, the Court assumes Defendant has no opposition to the motion. The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion and awards the Plaintiff, Connie Haddock, $3,234.00 (three thousand two hundred thirty four dollars) for attorney fees and $0 (zero dollars) for costs in full satisfaction of any and all claims the Plaintiff may have under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. 2 The award fully and completely satisfies any and all claims for attorney fees, expenses, and costs that may be payable to the Plaintiff in this matter under the EAJA. Any fees paid belong to the Plaintiff and not the Plaintiff’s attorney. The fees can be offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt that the Plaintiff owes the United States. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 (2010). If the Defendant can verify that the Plaintiff does not owe pre-existing debt to the government subject to offset, the Defendant will direct payment of the award to the Plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to 1Citations 2 to the Docket in this case are abbreviated as “D. __.” The undersigned presides over this case with the consent of all parties. (D. 9). 1 a valid EAJA assignment that has been executed between the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney. It is so ordered. Entered on July 26, 2017. s/Jonathan E. Hawley U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?