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.)
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?