Purdom v. Commissioner, SSA
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING 37 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application for Attorney's Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Dkt. # 32 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 10/16/2020. (daj, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
MELINDA PURDOM
v.
COMMISSIONER, SSA
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:18-CV-438
(Judge Mazzant/Judge Nowak)
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action,
this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
On September 29, 2020, the report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #37) was entered containing
proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Plaintiff’s post-judgment Application for
Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Dkt. #32) be granted in part and denied in
part.
Having received the report of the Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto having been
timely filed, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge
are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees under the Equal
Access to Justice Act (Dkt. #32) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and the
.
Commissioner is directed to pay ten thousand four hundred sixteen dollars and eighty-three cents
($10,416.83) as reasonable attorney’s fees, made payable to Plaintiff, with such payment to be
mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 16th day of October, 2020.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
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?