Maddux-Westbrook v. Colvin

Filing 28

ORDER granting 25 motion for attorney fees. Signed on 09/03/15 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Amos, Gloria)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION SHANNON MADDUX-WESTBROOK, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:14-cv-00420-SRB ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. #25). Plaintiff has requested an award of attorney’s fees in this case pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $7,000 for 25.8 hours of attorney time at a rate of $125 per hour. Defendant informed the Court it has no objection to an award of EAJA fees in this case (Doc. #27). Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), an EAJA fee award is payable to the litigant-plaintiff and is subject to offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt the litigant owes the United States. Because Plaintiff has assigned any EAJA fee award to his/her attorney, the Court will order Defendant to verify whether Plaintiff owes a debt to the United States that is subject to offset and if not, make the fee payable to Plaintiff’s attorney based on the assignment. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. #25) is GRANTED. It is further 1 ORDERED Plaintiff shall be awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $7,000 pursuant to the EAJA. Defendant shall verify whether Plaintiff owes a debt to the United States that is subject to offset and if not, shall make the fee payable to Plaintiff’s attorney based on the assignment. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: September 3, 2015 /s/ Stephen R. Bough JUDGE STEPHEN R. BOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?