Smith v. Saul

N.D. Mississippi

Smith v. Saul

DecidedJuly 23, 2020

Docket1:19-cv-00141

StatusUnknown

This text of Smith v. Saul (Smith v. Saul) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Saul, (N.D. Miss. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION

RAMONA NANNETTE SMITH § PLAINTIFF § v. § Civil No. 1:19-cv-00141-JMV § ANDREW M. SAUL, § Commissioner of Social Security § DEFENDANT

ORDER BEFORE THE COURT are Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, [27] and the Commissioner’s response [28]. For the reasons stated in Plaintiff’s motion, and hearing no objection from Defendant, the Court finds Plaintiff’s attorney fee award request is reasonable, and the request for reimbursement for costs is well taken. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is granted, and Plaintiff is awarded $5,106.00 in attorney fees. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded $550.00 as reimbursement for costs. Lastly, consistent with Astrue vs. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010), Defendant should ensure the EAJA award check is made payable to Plaintiff (for the benefit of her counsel) and mailed to her counsel. SO ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 2020.

/s/ Jane M. Virden United States Magistrate Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION

RAMONA NANNETTE SMITH § PLAINTIFF § v. § Civil No. 1:19-cv-00141-JMV § ANDREW M. SAUL, § Commissioner of Social Security § DEFENDANT

ORDER BEFORE THE COURT are Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, [27] and the Commissioner’s response [28]. For the reasons stated in Plaintiff’s motion, and hearing no objection from Defendant, the Court finds Plaintiff’s attorney fee award request is reasonable, and the request for reimbursement for costs is well taken. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is granted, and Plaintiff is awarded $5,106.00 in attorney fees. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded $550.00 as reimbursement for costs. Lastly, consistent with Astrue vs. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010), Defendant should ensure the EAJA award check is made payable to Plaintiff (for the benefit of her counsel) and mailed to her counsel. SO ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 2020.

/s/ Jane M. Virden United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith v. Saul, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-saul-msnd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack