Mitchell v. Commissioner of SSA
Plaintiff: Jeremiah Mitchell
Defendant: Commissioner of SSA
Case Number: 3:2009cv00276
Filed: July 17, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Dayton Office
County: ADAMS
Presiding Judge:
Presiding Judge: Sharon L Ovington
Presiding Judge: Walter H Rice
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 42:416 Denial of Social Security Benefits
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 8, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 17 DECISION AND ENTRY - Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendations filed on May 21, 2012 (Doc. # 16 ) is ADOPTED in full; 2. Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. #14) is GRANTED, in part, to the extent Plaintiff is entitled to an EAJA award in the total amount of$2,656.25. Plaintiffs Motion for an EAJA award totaling $3,614.84 is DENIED; 3. Defendant is directed to verify, within twenty-one days of this Decision and Entry, whether or not Plaintiff owes a pre-existing debt to the United Statessubject to offset. Ifno such pre-existing debt exists, Defendant is ordered topay the EAJA award directly to Plaintiffs counsel; and, 4. The case remains terminated on the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 06/08/12. (pb1)
May 21, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 14 ) be GRANTED, in part, to the extent Plaintiff is entitled to an EAJA award in the total amount of $2,656.25. Plainti ff's Motion for an EAJA award totaling $3,614.84 should be DENIED;2. Defendant be directed to verify, within twenty-one days of an Order adopting this Report and Recommendations, whether or not Plaintiff owes a pre-existing debt to the Unit ed States subject to offset. If no such pre-existing debt exists, Defendant be ordered to pay the EAJA award directly to Plaintiff's counsel; and, 3. The case remains terminated on the docket of this Court. Objections to R&R due by 6/7/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L Ovington on 5/21/2012. (sc1)
September 29, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 12 DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. 10 ); PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS IN PART TO SAID JUDICIAL FILING (DOC. 11 ) SUSTAINED; JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER, REVERSING COMMISSIONER'S DECISION THAT PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DISABLED AND, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFITS UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND REMANDING THE CAPTIONED MATTER TO THE DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER FOR THE PAYMENT OF BENEFITS CONSISTENT WITH THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT; TERMINATION ENTRY. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 9/28/10. (cib1)
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 Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Mitchell v. Commissioner of SSA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jeremiah Mitchell
Represented By: Stephanie D Dobson
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: Commissioner of SSA
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?