Williams v. Barnhart

D. South Carolina

Williams v. Barnhart

481 F. Supp. 2d 482, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60394, 2007 WL 1030079

CourtDistrict Court, D. South Carolina

DecidedFebruary 2, 2007

DocketC.A. 4:99-3694-PMD

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 481 F. Supp. 2d 482 (Williams v. Barnhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Barnhart, 481 F. Supp. 2d 482, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60394, 2007 WL 1030079 (D.S.C. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

DUFFY, District Judge.

On June 23, 2006, Plaintiff Henry Williams’ Attorney, Robertson H. Wendt, Jr. (“Attorney”) filed a petition for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). In an Order filed January 16, 2007, this court found that this petition, which was filed over five years after this court’s judgment remanding the case and over three years after Attorney received notice of the *483 amount of benefits awarded by the Commission, was untimely under any possible standard. For this reason, the court denied Attorney’s petition. This matter is now before the court on Attorney’s Motion to Alter of Amend the Order pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment may be granted for three reasons: 1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; 2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or 3) to correct a clear error of law or a manifest injustice. Pacific Ins. Co. v. American Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir.1998). In the case sub judice, there has been no intervening change in controlling law, nor is there any new evidence presented. Thus, if relief is available, it must be to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice.

In his Motion, Attorney does not contest this court’s finding that his petition for fees was untimely and that the untimeliness was unreasonable; rather, Attorney asks the court to “issue an interim rule or order to clarify the procedure for the filing of Social Security fee petitions under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).” [Mot. To Alter or Amend at 4.] The court finds that this Motion does not request relief appropriate for a Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend. Attorney offers no appropriate grounds for reconsideration of the denial of his petition for attorney’s fees. For this reason, Attorney’s Motion is DENIED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

ORDER

DUFFY, District Judge.

On June 23, 2006, Plaintiff Henry Williams’ Attorney, Robertson H. Wendt, Jr. (“Attorney”) filed a petition for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). In an Order filed January 16, 2007, this court found that this petition, which was filed over five years after this court’s judgment remanding the case and over three years after Attorney received notice of the *483 amount of benefits awarded by the Commission, was untimely under any possible standard. For this reason, the court denied Attorney’s petition. This matter is now before the court on Attorney’s Motion to Alter of Amend the Order pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment may be granted for three reasons: 1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; 2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or 3) to correct a clear error of law or a manifest injustice. Pacific Ins. Co. v. American Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir.1998). In the case sub judice, there has been no intervening change in controlling law, nor is there any new evidence presented. Thus, if relief is available, it must be to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice.

In his Motion, Attorney does not contest this court’s finding that his petition for fees was untimely and that the untimeliness was unreasonable; rather, Attorney asks the court to “issue an interim rule or order to clarify the procedure for the filing of Social Security fee petitions under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).” [Mot. To Alter or Amend at 4.] The court finds that this Motion does not request relief appropriate for a Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend. Attorney offers no appropriate grounds for reconsideration of the denial of his petition for attorney’s fees. For this reason, Attorney’s Motion is DENIED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

481 F. Supp. 2d 482, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60394, 2007 WL 1030079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-barnhart-scd-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack