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)
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?