Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_03-cv-00014/USCOURTS-almd-2_03-cv-00014-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Defendant
Roy S. Matthews
Plaintiff

Document Text:

The judgment entered by the court, styled as an “ORDER,” stated: 1

In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered herewith, it is

ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner be and is hereby

REVERSED and that this case be and is hereby REMANDED to the

Commissioner for an evaluation of whether the claimant’s borderline

intellectual functioning, when considered in association with his

other severe impairments, justify a finding that the Claimant is not

disabled within the meaning of the Act. It is further ORDERED that

costs be and are hereby taxed against the plaintiff.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ROY S. MATTHEWS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:03cv0014-VPM

) [WO]

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER ON MOTION

This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s [“Matthews”] Motion for Attorney Fees

(Doc. # 26) pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (2000). The defendant

[“Commissioner”] objects to the motion as being untimely (Doc. # 30). The court agrees with the

Commissioner, and for the reasons stated herein, the motion is due to be denied. 

I. DISCUSSION

On 4 December 2003, this court entered a memorandum opinion and, in a separate document,

a final judgment reversing and remanding a final decision of the Commissioner (Docs. ## 21, 22),

whereupon the Clerk of Court closed the case. Matthews then had until 3 March 2003 to file a 1

Case 2:03-cv-00014-VPM Document 33 Filed 02/28/06 Page 1 of 2
(Doc. # 22). 

Although lacking the word “judgment,” this document clearly disposed of the case and ended

the litigation in compliance with Rule 58, which imposes no specific language requirements. See

also FED. R. CIV. P. 54(a) (defining “judgment” as “a decree and any order from which an appeal

lies”). Matthews’s legally unsupported insistence that this document did not constitute a separate

judgment in compliance with Rule 58 is without merit. 

motion for attorney fees under EAJA. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302 (1993) (discussing

the relevant time limitations).

He filed his motion on 9 April 2003. 

II. CONCLUSION 

Therefore, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. 

DONE this 28th day of February, 2006. 

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00014-VPM Document 33 Filed 02/28/06 Page 2 of 2