Monroe v. Colvin

Filing 25

ORDER granting 22 Motion for Attorney Fees Under EAJA - Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 03/04/2015. (Baker, C.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION 5:14-CV-264-FL THERESE MONROE, Plaintiff vs. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R Pursuant to the power of this Court to award attorney fees under the equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.SC. § 2412, and in light of this Court’s judgment remanding this case to the defendant for further proceedings, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff be allowed attorney fees of $4,459.83, which the Court finds to be reasonable, in full satisfaction of any and all EAJA attorney fee claims plaintiff may have in this case and that payment be made directly to counsel for plaintiff. Pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010), these attorney fees are payable to plaintiff as the prevailing party and are subject to offset through the Treasury Department’s Offset Program to satisfy any pre-existing debt plaintiff may owe to the United States government. If, after the entry of this Order, the Commissioner determines that plaintiff owes no debt to the United States that would subject this award of attorney fees to offset, the Commissioner may honor the plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees providing for payment of the subject fees to plaintiff’s counsel, rather than to plaintiff. If, however, the Commissioner discovers that plaintiff owes the United States any debt subject to offset, the Commissioner will pay any attorney fees remaining after such offset to plaintiff, rather than to counsel. 4th March This the _______ day of _________________, 2015. ________________________________ LOUISE W. FLANAGAN United States District Court 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?