Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

COX v. ASTRUE, CIV S-05-1384 GEB DAD. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20120705789 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jul. 03, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 03, 2012
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge. This action was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636 and Local Rule 302(c)(15). On May 24, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendant has filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations. In acco
More

ORDER

GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.

This action was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 302(c)(15).

On May 24, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendant has filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 24, 2012 (Doc. No. 49) are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. No. 44) is granted;

3. Plaintiff is awarded $8,509.44 for attorney fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); and

4. Defendant is directed to determine whether plaintiff's EAJA attorneys fees are subject to any offset permitted under the United States Department of the Treasury's Offset Program and, if the fees are not subject to an offset, to honor plaintiff's assignment of EAJA fees and cause the payment of fees to be made directly to plaintiff's counsel pursuant to the assignment executed by plaintiff.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer