Simpson v. Astrue

Plaintiff: Dawn E. Simpson
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 2:2012cv00154
Filed: March 23, 2012
Court: Virginia Eastern District Court
Office: Norfolk Office
County: Chesapeake City
Presiding Judge: Arenda L. Wright Allen
Referring Judge: Tommy E. Miller
Nature of Suit: Disability Insurance
Cause of Action: 42:416
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
February 4, 2013 22 Opinion or Order of the Court FINAL ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; denying Ms. Simpson's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting the Commissioner's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; and judgment shall be entered in favor of theCommissioner. Signed by District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen and filed on 2/4/2013. (rsim, )

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

Search for this case: Simpson v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Dawn E. Simpson
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: 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 ]

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.