Mitchell v. Colvin
||Larry D. Mitchell
||Carolyn W. Colvin
||May 19, 2015
||US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
||Western Division Office
||James C. Fox
|Nature of Suit:
||Supplemental Security Income
|Cause of Action:
||42 U.S.C. § 205
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|June 20, 2017
JUDGMENT on Attorney Fees. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this action being submitted to the Court for an Order upon Plaintiff's showing that the Commissioner of Social Security should pay the sum of $7,439.75 for attorney fees, representing 25% of Plaintiffs accrued back benefits, to be paid fromPlaintiff's back benefits pursuant to § 406(b) of the Social Security Act. It also appearing that upon receipt of the 406(b) fee, Plaintiff's counsel shall pay t o Plaintiff the lesser EAJA fee of $3,319.25. It is therefore ORDERED that the Commissioner of Social Security pay to Plaintiff's counsel the sum of $7,439.75 from Plaintiffs back benefits and upon the payment of such sum this case is dismissed with prejudice.. Signed by Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court on 6/20/2017. (Briggeman, N.)
|October 25, 2016
CONSENT ORDER granting 34 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 10/25/2016. (Grady, B.)
|July 28, 2016
ORDER adopting 31 Memorandum and Recommendation, granting 25 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and denying 27 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 7/28/2016. (Grady, B.)
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 North Carolina Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?