English-Eldell v. Saul, No. 1:2019cv00160 - Document 24 (S.D. Ala. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ADOPTING 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION as set out. Plf's 19 MOTION for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act is GRANTED in part & DENIED in part, & Plf is AWARDED fees in the amount of $4,205.55 under the EAJA. Signed by District Judge Terry F. Moorer on 1/28/2020. (tot)

Download PDF
English-Eldell v. Saul Doc. 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION CORA E. ENGLISH-ELDELL, Plaintiff, vs. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-cv-160-TFM-B MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On January 7, 2020, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23), to which no objections have been filed. After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 19) pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is hereby AWARDED fees in the amount of $4,205.55 under the Equal Access to Justice Act.1 DONE and ORDERED this the 28th day of January, 2020. /s/Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 On May 5, 2008, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732 (11th Cir. 2008) in which the Court unambiguously held that “attorney’s fees are awarded to the prevailing party, not to the prevailing party’s attorney.” Id. at 738. On June 14, 2010, the United States Supreme Court decided Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 177 L.Ed.2d 91 (2010) in which the Court also unambiguously held that attorney’s fees are awarded to the prevailing litigant – not to prevailing litigant’s attorney – and are therefore also subject to any offset for debts. Page 1 of 1 Dockets.Justia.com

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.