Murphy v. Colvin

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 22 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Plaintiff Timmothy Murphy. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's application for attorney's fees is GRANTED in the amount of $4,368.75, payable directly to Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 22.) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 11/23/16. (CSG)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION TIMMOTHY MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:15CV00131 AGF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,368.75, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Plaintiff is the prevailing party in his action challenging the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff seeks $4,368.75 in fees, to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to an assignment of fees to counsel, executed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has submitted documentation supporting the requested amount of fees. The Commissioner responds that it does not object to the award of fees in the amount sought, but notes that Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), mandates that the fees are to be paid directly to Plaintiff. The Court’s review of the record indicates that the amount of fees sought is reasonable and properly supported. As the Commissioner asserts, however, Astrue v. Ratliff requires that the fees be paid directly to Plaintiff, even in light of the assignment signed by Plaintiff. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $4,368.75, payable directly to Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 22.) ________________________________ AUDREY G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 23rd day of November, 2016. 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?