Buske v. Colvin

Buske v. Colvin

Plaintiff:	Joseph E. Buske, Sr.
Defendant:	Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number:	5:2015cv00330
Filed:	March 21, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Office:	Syracuse Office
County:	Oswego
Presiding Judge:	Mae A. D'Agostino
Presiding Judge:	Christian F. Hummel
Nature of Suit:	Disability Insurance
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
March 25, 2016	Filing 13 ORDER adopting in part and Rejecting in part Report and Recommendations re 12 Report and Recommendations: The Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Hummel's March 9, 2015 Report-Recommendation and Order is ADOPTED in part and REJECTED in part for the reasons stated herein; and the Court furtherORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 10) isGRANTED; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 11) is DENIED; and the Court further ORDERS that the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits is VACATED andthis matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommen dation and Order that have been adopted by this Court; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk shall enter judgment and close this case; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 3/25/2016. (ban)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 25, 2016

Filing 13 ORDER adopting in part and Rejecting in part Report and Recommendations re 12 Report and Recommendations: The Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Hummel's March 9, 2015 Report-Recommendation and Order is ADOPTED in part and REJECTED in part for the reasons stated herein; and the Court furtherORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 10) isGRANTED; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 11) is DENIED; and the Court further ORDERS that the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits is VACATED andthis matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommen dation and Order that have been adopted by this Court; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk shall enter judgment and close this case; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 3/25/2016. (ban)

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 New York Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Buske 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: Joseph E. Buske, Sr.
Represented By:	Jaya A. Shurtliff
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 W. 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?