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)
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?