Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01562/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01562-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD CATHEY, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner )

of Social Security, )

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:10-cv-1562 LJO-BAM

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’

FEES

(Document 23)

On August 27, 2010, Plaintiff, Donald Cathey, filed the present action for judicial review of

the denial of Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff’s appeal was granted and his case was

remanded to the Administrative Law Judge to conduct further proceedings. (Docs. 17, 18). 

Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (Doc. 20). On March 25, 2013, the

Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Attorneys’ Fees be GRANTED IN PART. (Doc. 23). The Findings and Recommendations were

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fifteen days (15)

days. The Commissioner filed her objections on May 2, 2013. (Doc. 23). 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including any objections, the

Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported bythe record and proper analysis. 

1

Case 1:10-cv-01562-BAM Document 24 Filed 05/06/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated August 30, 2011 (Doc. 21), are

ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2. Plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to an award in the total amount of $6,742.53. 

This amount should be payable to Plaintiff pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521

(2010).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 66h44d

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-01562-BAM Document 24 Filed 05/06/13 Page 2 of 2