MADISON v. COLVIN
Plaintiff: DONALD RICKY MADISON
Defendant: CAROLYN COLVIN
Case Number: 3:2014cv00570
Filed: October 22, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Florida
Office: Pensacola Office
County: Escambia
Presiding Judge: M CASEY RODGERS
Presiding Judge: CHARLES J KAHN
Nature of Suit: Disability Insurance
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 205
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
June 9, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 15 MEMORANDUM ORDER. The decision of the defendant Commissioner is AFFIRMED and plaintiff's request for additional Disability Insurance Benefits is DENIED. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES J KAHN, JR on 6/9/2015. (sdw)
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 Florida Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: MADISON v. COLVIN
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: DONALD RICKY MADISON
Represented By: MICHAEL JAY TONDER
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: CAROLYN COLVIN
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.


Why Is My Information Online?