Unice v. Social Security Administration
Plaintiff: Susan K. Unice
Defendant: Social Security Administration
Case Number: 3:2016cv02469
Filed: September 9, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Office: Nashville Office
County: Williamson
Presiding Judge: Joe Brown
Presiding Judge: Aleta A. Trauger
Nature of Suit: Disability Insurance
Cause of Action: 42:405
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
November 9, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 48 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The court finds the plaintiff's Objections to be meritorious in part. The R&R 44 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, except as clarified below. The plaintiff's at torney's fees motion (Doc. No. 34 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and the plaintiff is hereby awarded $13,659.76 in EAJA attorney's fees and $493.00 in costs. The R&R is MODIFIED only insofar as the plaintiff requests a clarification of the Order awarding fees. The motions to transfer venue (Doc. Nos. 35 , 45 ) are DENIED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 11/92018. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg)
July 20, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 44 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 34 MOTION for Attorney Fees & Costs filed by Susan K. Unice. The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ( 34 ) be G RANTED in part and DENIED in part, and that Plaintiff be awarded $13,659.76 in EAJA attorney's fees and $493 in costs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 7/20/18. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(gb)
September 12, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 32 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Following a de novo review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and as provided in the memorandum entered contemporaneously herewith, plaintiff's objections ( 30 ) are OVERRULED, and the court ACCEPT S and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R ( 29 )as the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 9/12/17. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(gb)
July 12, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 29 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Based Upon the Administrative Record (Doc. 18 ) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and the Commissioner's decision be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVE RSED IN PART, and REMANDED for further consideration and explanation as to whether Plaintiff and her daughter were overpaid. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 7/12/17. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(gb)
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 Tennessee Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Unice v. 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: Susan K. Unice
Represented By: Frankie Adamo
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: Social Security Administration
Represented By: Mercedes C. Maynor-Faulcon
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?