Huntley v. Astrue

Huntley v. Astrue

Plaintiff:	Hercules Huntley
Defendant:	Michael J. Astrue
Case Number:	3:2010cv00810
Filed:	September 24, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Office:	Opelika Office
County:	Macon
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
April 26, 2012	Filing 20 ORDER directing as follows: (1.) That the 17 motion for attorney's fees be and is hereby GRANTED to the extent that the plaintiff be and is hereby AWARDED fees in the amount of $3,770.24; (2.) To the extent that plaintiff's counsel r equests that fees should be awarded to directly to counsel, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) authorizes the court to award fees to the prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § (d)(2)(B). See also Reeves, supra. The motion that fees be paid directly to counsel be and is hereby DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/26/12. (Furnished to Cashier.) (scn, )
January 17, 2012	Filing 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that this case will be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion; further ORDERED that the plaintiff shall have sixty (60) days after he receives notice of an y amount of past due benefits awarded to seek attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b); a separate order will issue. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 1/17/12. (Furnished via USPS to SSA Hearings/Appeals and SSA Chief Judge)(scn, )

Date Filed

Document Text

April 26, 2012

Filing 20 ORDER directing as follows: (1.) That the 17 motion for attorney's fees be and is hereby GRANTED to the extent that the plaintiff be and is hereby AWARDED fees in the amount of $3,770.24; (2.) To the extent that plaintiff's counsel r equests that fees should be awarded to directly to counsel, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) authorizes the court to award fees to the prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § (d)(2)(B). See also Reeves, supra. The motion that fees be paid directly to counsel be and is hereby DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 4/26/12. (Furnished to Cashier.) (scn, )

January 17, 2012

Filing 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that this case will be reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion; further ORDERED that the plaintiff shall have sixty (60) days after he receives notice of an y amount of past due benefits awarded to seek attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b); a separate order will issue. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 1/17/12. (Furnished via USPS to SSA Hearings/Appeals and SSA Chief Judge)(scn, )

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: Huntley v. Astrue
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Hercules Huntley
Represented By:	Cheryl Dickey Chapman
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: Michael J. Astrue
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?