Etheridge v. Astrue

Plaintiff: Cornelius Etheridge
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 2:2008cv00357
Filed: June 20, 2008
Court: Alabama Southern District Court
Office: Social Security: SSID Tit. XIV Office
County: Wilcox
Referring Judge: Sonja F. Bivins
Presiding Judge: William H. Steele
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
November 16, 2010 35 Opinion or Order of the Court JUDGMENT on Attorney Fees. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Petitioner is authorized to receive $9,453.70 as a fee for services rendered before this Court. Additionally, Petitioner is hereby DIRECTED to disburse to Plaintiff the sum of $1,583.15, which was previously awarded pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 11/16/10. (tgw)
October 27, 2010 33 Opinion or Order of the Court REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 29 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Cornelius Etheridge. It is recommended that the motion be granted, that Petitioner William T. Coplin receive, as an attorney's fee, the sum of $9,453.70, and that Mr. Coplin be directed to disburse to Plaintiff the sum of $1,583.15, which was previously awarded. Objections to R&R due by 11/10/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 10/27/10. (tgw)
December 31, 2009 28 Opinion or Order of the Court JUDGMENT entered in accordance with the Order entered on this date. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Petitioner be awarded attorney's fees of $1,583.15. Signed by Judge William H. Steele on 12/31/09. (tgw)
December 10, 2009 26 Opinion or Order of the Court REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 23 MOTION for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act filed by Cornelius Etheridge. It is recommended that Plaintiff's motion be GRANTED in part, and that the Plaintiff receive a reasonable attorney's fee in the amount of $1,583.15. Objections to R&R due by 12/24/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 12/10/09. (tgw)
September 29, 2009 22 Opinion or Order of the Court JUDGMENT entered in accordance with the Order entered on this date. It ishereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the decision of theCommissioner of Social Security, denying Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits, be REVERSED and REMANDED. Signed by Judge William H. Steele on 9/29/09. (tgw)
September 10, 2009 19 Opinion or Order of the Court REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ent. that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's claim for period of disability and disability insurance benefits be REVERSED and REMANDED; Objections to R&R due by 9/24/2009 Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 9/10/09. (mjn, )

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Etheridge v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Cornelius Etheridge
Represented By: William T. Coplin, Jr.
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 [ 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 [ 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?