Weece v. Social Security Administration, No. 6:2008cv00415 - Document 28 (E.D. Okla. 2010)

Court Description: AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES TO THE PLAINTIFF UNDER THE EAJA by Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder, amending and superseding 25 Opinion and Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees (Re: 23 Motion for Attorney Fees and 27 Unopposed Motion to Amend). Further, Unopposed Motion to Alter Order/Judgment (Docket No. 26 ) is hereby stricken.(eje, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA BOBBY D. WEECE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CIV-08-415-SPS AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS FEES TO THE PLAINTIFF UNDER THE EAJA The Plaintiff was the prevailing party in this appeal of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration s decision denying benefits under the Social Security Act. The parties have stipulated that the Plaintiff should be awarded $5,997.00 in attorneys fees as the prevailing party under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (the EAJA ). The Court finds that said amount is reasonable and that the Commissioner should therefore be directed to pay it to the Plaintiff herein. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) ( Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party . . . fees and other expenses . . . incurred by that party in any civil action [.] ). See also Manning v. Astrue, 510 F.3d 1246, 1249-50 (10th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 486, 172 L. Ed. 2d 355 (2008). Accordingly, the Plaintiff s Application for Award of Attorney s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 28 U.S.C. § 2412 [Docket No. 23] is hereby GRANTED, and the Commissioner is hereby ordered to pay to the Plaintiff $5,997.00 in attorneys fees. IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of May 2010. _____________________________________ STEVEN P. SHREDER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -2-

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.