Davis-Rascoe v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
25
ORDER re 20 Motion for Attorney Fees. The court orders the defendant to pay the sum of $2,671.87 in attorneys fees and $22.46 in expenses pursuant to EAJA, subject to the Treasury Offset Program if the prevailing party owes a debt to the federal government. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 9/14/2017.(abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Makesha Davis-Rascoe,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
C/A No.: 8:17-cv-00003-RBH
ORDER
On August 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access
to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2412, on the basis that the position taken by the defendant in this
action was not substantially justified. In the motion, Plaintiff requested attorney’s fees in the amount
of $2,671.87 and expenses in the amount of $22.46. On September 12, 2017, the parties filed a
stipulation indicating that the parties agreed to an EAJA award of $2,671.87 in attorney’s fees and
$22.46 in expenses. The stipulation provides that fees awarded are subject to be offset if the prevailing
party owes a debt to the federal government.
Based on the foregoing and after considering the briefs and materials submitted by the parties,
the court orders the defendant to pay the sum of $2,671.87 in attorney’s fees and $22.46 in expenses
pursuant to EAJA, subject to the Treasury Offset Program if the prevailing party owes a debt to the
federal government. However, the payment shall be made payable to the claimant pursuant to Astrue
v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010) and mailed to her attorney, with a copy to the claimant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 7, 2017
Florence, South Carolina
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
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?