Provitt v. Astrue

Plaintiff: Kim Letitia Provitt
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 2:2010cv01056
Filed: December 13, 2010
Court: Alabama Middle District Court
Office: Montgomery Office
County: Montgomery
Presiding Judge: Charles S. Coody
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42:405
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
January 13, 2012 16 Opinion or Order of the Court FINAL JUDGMENT, in accordance with the memorandum opinion entered herewith, it s ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision of the Commissioner be and is hereby AFFIRMED and that this case be and is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice; further ORDERING that costs be and are hereby taxed against the plaintiff for which execution may issue. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 1/13/12. (djy, )

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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Provitt v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Kim Letitia Provitt
Represented By: Cheryl Dickey Chapman
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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?