Prince v. Colvin

Filing 29

Order Accepting 28 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART 21 Plaintiff's Application for Attorney Fees Under the 'Bad Faith' Provi sion of the Equal Access to Justice Act. As recommended, Plaintiff is awarded $13,228.90 in attorneys' fees and the award shall be made payable to Plaintiff but mailed to his attorney of record. (Ordered by Chief Judge Jorge A Solis on 2/25/2015) (chmb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION GREGORY CHARLES PRINCE, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § No. 13-CV-4804-P ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge has issued Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation (“FCR”) in this case. No one has filed any objection to the FCR. After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the Court finds that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. Having reviewed the FCR for clear error, it is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. And it GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney Fees Under the “Bad Faith” Provision of the Equal Access to Justice Act (doc. 21). As recommended, Plaintiff is awarded $13,228.90 in attorneys’ fees and the award shall be made payable to Plaintiff but mailed to his attorney of record. SO ORDERED this 25th day of February, 2015. _________________________________ JORGE A. SOLIS 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?