Wright v. Colvin
Plaintiff: Steven E. Wright
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Interested Party: Office of General Counsel Social Security Administration
Case Number: 4:2016cv03026
Filed: February 23, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of Nebraska
Office: 4 Lincoln Office
Presiding Judge: Lyle E. Strom
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
June 25, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 40 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Filing No. 26 ) is granted. The plaintiff is awarded $18,928.25 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). Counsel shall refund to plaintiff the EAJA fee, $6,484.80. A Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum and Order will issue this date. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (LAC)
January 10, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 35 ORDER that the Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees is granted in the amount of $6,484.80 to be paid by the Social Security Administration. The EAJA fee is payable to plaintiff and may be subject to offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt that the litigant may owe to the United States. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (LAC)
November 1, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 30 ORDER AND JUDGMENT that defendant's motion is granted. Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the decision of the ALJ is reversed; this case is remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (LAC)
August 30, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER that Plaintiff's motion for enlargement of time 23 is denied as moot. Plaintiff's amended motion for enlargement of time 24 is granted; plaintiff shall have until September 30, 2016, to file his brief. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (SLP)
July 26, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ORDER granting the Plaintiff's 21 Motion for enlargement of time; plaintiff shall have until August 29, 2016, to file his brief. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (MKR)
June 1, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER granting the Defendant's Motion for extension of time 14 . Defendant shall have until June 30, 2016, to respond to plaintiff's complaint. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (MKR)
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 Nebraska District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Wright v. Colvin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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 ]
Interested party: Office of General Counsel Social Security Administration
Represented By: Office of General Counsel Social Security Administ
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 ]
Plaintiff: Steven E. Wright
Represented By: Warren L. Reimer
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?