Smith v. Colvin

Smith v. Colvin

Plaintiff:	Christopher Lee Smith
Defendant:	Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number:	3:2014cv01169
Filed:	November 24, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Office:	Opelika Office
County:	Randolph
Presiding Judge:	Charles S. Coody
Nature of Suit:	Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
October 29, 2018	Filing 24 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that, pursuant to the 42 USC 406(b), the 21 petition for attorney's fees be and is hereby GRANTED, to the extent that the Commissioner shall pay to the plf's attorney $8,106.56 of the amount previously withheld from the plf's past due benefits; In all other respects, the motions for attorney's fees be and are hereby DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/29/2018. (wcl, )
May 16, 2016	Filing 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the decision of the Commissioner will be reversed and this case remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion; A separate final judgment will be entered; further ORDERED that, in accordance with Bergen v. Commr of Soc. Sec., 454 F.3d 1273, 17 1278 fn. 2 (11th Cir. 2006), the plaintiff shall have sixty (60) days after he receives notice of any amount of past due benefits awarded to seek attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).See also Blitch v. Astrue, 261 Fed. Appx. 241, 242 fn.1 (11th Cir. 2008). Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 5/16/16. (djy, )

Date Filed

Document Text

October 29, 2018

Filing 24 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that, pursuant to the 42 USC 406(b), the 21 petition for attorney's fees be and is hereby GRANTED, to the extent that the Commissioner shall pay to the plf's attorney $8,106.56 of the amount previously withheld from the plf's past due benefits; In all other respects, the motions for attorney's fees be and are hereby DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 10/29/2018. (wcl, )

May 16, 2016

Filing 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the decision of the Commissioner will be reversed and this case remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion; A separate final judgment will be entered; further ORDERED that, in accordance with Bergen v. Commr of Soc. Sec., 454 F.3d 1273, 17 1278 fn. 2 (11th Cir. 2006), the plaintiff shall have sixty (60) days after he receives notice of any amount of past due benefits awarded to seek attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).See also Blitch v. Astrue, 261 Fed. Appx. 241, 242 fn.1 (11th Cir. 2008). Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 5/16/16. (djy, )

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Smith v. Colvin
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Christopher Lee Smith
Represented By:	Melissa Boles Horner
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?