Gevedon v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

ORDER granting 19 Motion for Attorney Fees to the extent as ordered herein. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 5/6/2022. (ams)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 1:21-cv-00178-MOC THOMAS GEVEDON, Plaintiff, vs. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Consent Motion for Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), filed on April 21, 2022. (Doc. No. 19). The Court determines that Plaintiff should be awarded an attorney’s fee under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in the amount of $5,300.00. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) filed is GRANTED, to the extent that the Court will award attorney fees in the amount of $5,300, and that pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), the fee award will first be subject to offset of any debt Plaintiff may owe to the United States. The Commissioner will determine 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 the 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. Case 1:21-cv-00178-MOC Document 20 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 2 Signed: May 6, 2022 Case 1:21-cv-00178-MOC Document 20 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 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?