Ryder v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 21 ; granting stipulation 22 ; granting corrected stipulation 20 ; terminating as moot stipulation 19 ; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SUSAN LYNN RYDER,
Case No. 1:15-cv-46
HON. JANET T. NEFF
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
ORDER APPROVING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The parties filed a Stipulation of
Consent to EAJA Fees (Dkt 19), which was corrected the same day (Dkt 20). The matter was
referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R) on January 18,
2017, recommending that this Court grant the corrected stipulation, and terminate the original
stipulation as moot. The R & R was duly served on the parties. On January 20, 2017, the parties
filed a Stipulation of Consent to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt 22), requesting the
approval of the R & R without the necessity of the fourteen-day objection period. The Court having
reviewed the above filings:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation of Consent to Magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation (Dkt 22) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
(Dkt 21) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Corrected Stipulation of Consent to EAJA Fees (Dkt
20) is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Stipulation of Consent to EAJA Fees (Dkt 19) is
TERMINATED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant pay Plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of
four thousand, two hundred eighty-seven dollars and fifty cents ($4,287.50).
Dated: January 23, 2017
/s/Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
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?