Barnett v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Oregon District Court Barnett v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Barnett v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Plaintiff:	Jordan Barnett
Defendant:	Commissioner Social Security Administration
Case Number:	3:2015cv00987
Filed:	June 4, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office:	Portland (3) Office
Presiding Judge:	John Jelderks
Nature of Suit:	Social Security: SSID Tit. XIV
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 0405 g Review of Commissioner's Final Decision
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
May 10, 2017	Filing 25 ORDER: Granting Stipulated Application for Fees Pursuant to EAJA 24 . Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the amount of $3,185.25 shall be awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Signed on 5/10/2017 by Magistrate Judge John Jelderks. (jtj)
March 23, 2017	Filing 22 ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Jelderk's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accord ingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Jelderk's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 20 . The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED. This action is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the Findings and Recommendation (ECF 20 ). Signed on 3/23/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 10, 2017

Filing 25 ORDER: Granting Stipulated Application for Fees Pursuant to EAJA 24 . Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the amount of $3,185.25 shall be awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Signed on 5/10/2017 by Magistrate Judge John Jelderks. (jtj)

March 23, 2017

Filing 22 ORDER - No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and reviews Judge Jelderk's Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accord ingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Jelderk's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 20 . The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED. This action is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the Findings and Recommendation (ECF 20 ). Signed on 3/23/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

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

Search for this case: Barnett v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jordan Barnett
Represented By:	Merrill Schneider
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 Social Security Administration
Represented By:	Sarah Elizabeth Moum
Represented By:	Ronald K. Silver
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?