Dunham v. Social Security Administration

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 22 Supplemental MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pursuant to EAJA filed by Plaintiff Roger Dunham, 20 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pursuant to EAJA filed by Plaintiff Roger Dunham... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant pay fees and expenses in the amount of $3,232.50, paid directly to plaintiffs attorney, Anthony W. Bartels. Signed by Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 9/22/10. (MRS)

Download PDF
Dunham v. Social Security Administration Doc. 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION ROGER D. DUNHAM, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:09CV0053 SNLJ(LMB) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees (#20) and supplemental motion for attorney's fees (#22), filed August 24 and September 2, 2010. Defendant filed a response (#23) on September 7, 2010. This Court ordered (#18) that the report and recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Lewis M. Blanton (#16), filed May 6, 2010, be sustained, adopted and incorporated in the order of June 23, 2010. Plaintiff now comes pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §2412 and requests that this Court award her attorney's fees in the amount of $3,232.50 to be paid to plaintiff's attorney, Anthony W. Bartels, for 16.20 hours of attorney work and 5.3 hours of paralegal work on this case. The defendant has no objections to payment of the award under the EAJA directly to plaintiff's counsel. This Court finds that there are no circumstances in this case that would make an award under the EAJA unwarranted. Dockets.Justia.com Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant pay fees and expenses in the amount of $3,232.50, paid directly to plaintiff's attorney, Anthony W. Bartels. Dated this 22nd day of September, 2010. UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?