Lumpkin v. Astrue

Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Plaintiff: Charles Chamar Lumpkin
Case Number: 3:2012cv01817
Filed: December 28, 2012
Court: Connecticut District Court
Office: New Haven Office
County: Hartford
Presiding Judge: Thomas P. Smith
Nature of Suit: Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405dc Review of SSA Decision SSDC - Concurrent Title II and Title XVI Claims
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
August 13, 2014 21 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting in part and denying in part 13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 17 Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Judge Dominic J. Squatrito on 8/13/14. (Glynn, T.)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lumpkin v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Charles Chamar Lumpkin
Represented By: Charles E. Binder
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.