Jannson v. Colvin

Plaintiff: Reginald L. Jannson
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number: 0:2013cv00104
Filed: January 11, 2013
Court: Minnesota District Court
County: Clay
Presiding Judge: Michael J. Davis
Referring Judge: Tony N. Leung
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
February 20, 2014 20 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 18 Report and Recommendation (Written Opinion). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 11 is DENIED, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 13 is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 2/20/14. (KMW)

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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Jannson v. Colvin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Reginald L. Jannson
Represented By: Gary A Ficek
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: Carolyn W. Colvin
Represented By: Ana H Voss
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.