Adams v. SSA

Plaintiff: Donald Dwayne Adams
Defendant: SSA
Case Number: 7:2013cv00017
Filed: March 24, 2013
Court: Kentucky Eastern District Court
Office: Pikeville Office
County: Magoffin
Presiding Judge: Karen K. Caldwell
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision
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 26, 2014 13 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION & ORDER: 1) pla's motion for s/j 11 is DENIED. 2) Dft's motion for s/j 12 is GRANTED. 3) Decision of Commissioner is AFFIRMED. 4) A judgment will be entered contemporaneously with this order. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 6/26/2014. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 6/26/2014. (RKT)cc: COR

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 Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Adams v. SSA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Donald Dwayne Adams
Represented By: William Grover Arnett
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 ]
Defendant: SSA
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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.