Cotton v. Astrue
ORDER granting 15 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 11/14/13. (emw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL NO. 1:12CV340-FDW-DSC
BRUCE S. COTTON, JR.,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on the “Consent Motion for Order
Accepting the Parties’ Settlement Agreement on Attorney Fees and Costs” filed November 13,
The parties agree in this case that Plaintiff should be awarded attorney’s fees under the
Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in the amount of $5,823.40.
The parties further agree that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a)(1), Plaintiff should be
awarded costs in the amount of $350.00, payable from the Judgment Fund by the United States
Department of the Treasury.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the “Consent Motion for Order Accepting the
Parties’ Settlement Agreement on Attorney Fees and Costs” is GRANTED, to the extent that the
Court will award attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,823.40, and costs in the amount of $350.00.
Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 177 L.Ed.2d 91 (2010), the fee
award will first be subject to offset of any debt Plaintiff may owe to the United States. The
Commissioner will determine within thirty days of this Order whether Plaintiff owes a debt to
the United States. If so, the debt will be satisfied first, and if any funds remain, they will be
made payable to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel. If the United States Department of
the Treasury reports to the Commissioner that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, the
Government will exercise its discretion and honor an assignment of EAJA fees, and pay the
awarded fees directly to Plaintiff’s counsel. No additional petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2412(d) shall be filed.
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?