Lewis v. Colvin

Lewis v. Colvin

Plaintiff:	Rocheal Lewis
Defendant:	Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number:	1:2015cv01483
Filed:	May 1, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Office:	Atlanta Office
County:	Fulton
Presiding Judge:	William S. Duffey
Referring Judge:	E. Clayton Scofield
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
May 31, 2017	Filing 24 OPINION AND ORDER granting Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 21 . Plaintiff is awarded attorneys fees and costs, under the EAJA, in the amount of $7,648.53, subject to any offsetting debt owed by Plaintiff to the United States. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 5/31/17. (ddm)
July 26, 2016	Filing 19 OPINION AND ORDER overruling the Commissioners Objections to the R&R 17 and adopting as modified Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas's Final Report and Recommendation 13 . The decision of the Commissioner is VACATED and this matter is REMAN DED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the ALJ is required to state with specificity his reasons for rejecting or accepting Dr. Moore's opinions, to clarify his statement that Dr. Moore wrote that she largely relied on Plaintiffs statements, and to further develop the record regarding the extent of Plaintiffs mental impairment(s), if any, and their effects on her ability to do basic work activities. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 7/26/16. (ddm)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 31, 2017

Filing 24 OPINION AND ORDER granting Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 21 . Plaintiff is awarded attorneys fees and costs, under the EAJA, in the amount of $7,648.53, subject to any offsetting debt owed by Plaintiff to the United States. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 5/31/17. (ddm)

July 26, 2016

Filing 19 OPINION AND ORDER overruling the Commissioners Objections to the R&R 17 and adopting as modified Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas's Final Report and Recommendation 13 . The decision of the Commissioner is VACATED and this matter is REMAN DED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the ALJ is required to state with specificity his reasons for rejecting or accepting Dr. Moore's opinions, to clarify his statement that Dr. Moore wrote that she largely relied on Plaintiffs statements, and to further develop the record regarding the extent of Plaintiffs mental impairment(s), if any, and their effects on her ability to do basic work activities. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 7/26/16. (ddm)

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 Georgia Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lewis 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: Rocheal Lewis
Represented By:	Howard D. Olinsky
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?