Garrett v. Saul

District Court, W.D. North Carolina·Decided March 20, 2023·No. 1:21-cv-00046·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:21-cv-00046-GCM

JAMES GARRETT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Order COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. ) ) )

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the “Plaintiff’s Consent Motion for Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) and Costs.” (ECF No. 22). By consent of the parties, the Court orders as follows: 1. That the Social Security Administration shall pay $5,900.00 in attorney fees and $423.48 in costs to the Plaintiff in full settlement and satisfaction of any and all claims for attorney fees for legal services rendered under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 2. With respect to Plaintiff’s signed assignment of EAJA fees to his attorney, in accordance with Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), the Commissioner will determine whether Plaintiff owes a debt to the United States. If so, the debt will be satisfied first and, if any funds remain, they will be made payable to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel. If the Department of the Treasury reports to the Commissioner that the Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, the government will exercise its discretion and honor the assignment of EAJA fees and pay the awarded fees directly to Plaintiff's counsel. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Consent Motion for Fees (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED. SO ORDERED. Signed: March 20, 2023 Lbal Graham C. Mullen United States District Judge tat

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Garrett v. Saul, (W.D.N.C. 2023).

Garrett v. Saul (Garrett v. Saul) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Astrue v. Ratliff
560 U.S. 586 (Supreme Court, 2010)