Chappell v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
27
ORDER granting 24 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud on 11/21/2018. (jmt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TINA RENEE CHAPPELL,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER of SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
Civil No. 17-cv-868-JPG-CJP
ORDER for ATTORNEY’S FEES
PROUD, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees.
(Doc. 24). Defendant has responded that she has no objection. (Doc. 26).
The parties agree that plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees in
the amount of $3,812.15.
The Court finds that plaintiff is the prevailing party and is entitled to an
award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C.
§2412(d)(1)(B).
The Court further finds that the agreed upon amount is
reasonable and appropriate. This award shall fully and completely satisfy any
and all claims for fees, expenses, and costs, that may have been payable to
plaintiff in this matter pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C.
§2412.
1
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 24) is GRANTED. The Court
awards plaintiff attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,812.15 (three thousand eight
hundred twelve dollars and fifteen cents).
The amount awarded is payable to plaintiff and is subject to set-off for any
debt owed by plaintiff to the United States, per Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586
(2010).
See also, Harrington v. Berryhill, 906 F.3d 561 (7th Cir. 2018).
However, any part of the award that is not subject to set-off to pay plaintiff’s preexisting debt to the United States shall be made payable to plaintiff’s attorney
pursuant to the EAJA assignment executed by plaintiff and attached to the
motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: November 21, 2018.
s/ Clifford J. Proud
CLIFFORD J. PROUD
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?