Williams v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 33

ORDER granting 29 Motion for Attorney Fees: It is ORDERED that Plaintiff, Robert Thomas Williams, is awarded attorney fees under the EAJA in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) in attorney fees and Zero Dollars in expenses. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 5/2/2016.(gnan )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Robert Thomas Williams, ) Civil Action No. 4:14-4170-BHH ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ORDER CAROLYN M. COLVIN, ) Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ ) Upon consideration of the Joint Stipulation for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) 28 U.S.C. §2412(d), it is hereby, ORDERED that Plaintiff, Robert Thomas Williams, is awarded attorney fees under the EAJA in the amount of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) in attorney fees and Zero Dollars in expenses. The attorney fees will be paid directly to Plaintiff, Robert Thomas Williams, and sent to the business address of Plaintiff’s counsel. Full or partial remittance of the awarded attorney fees will be contingent upon a determination by the Government that Plaintiff owes no qualifying, pre-existing debt(s) to the Government. If such a debt(s) exists, the Government will reduce the awarded attorney fees in this Order to the extent necessary to satisfy such debt(s).1 IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge May 2, 2016 Greenville, South Carolina 1 In Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 598 (2010), the United States Supreme Court held that the EAJA requires attorneys’ fees to be awarded directly to the litigant. Id. (holding that the plain text of the EAJA requires that attorneys’ fees be awarded to the litigant, thus subjecting EAJA fees to offset of any pre-existing federal debts); see also Stephens v. Astrue, 565 F.3d 131, 139 (4th Cir. 2009) (same).

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?