Carlton v. Astrue
Plaintiff: James Edward Carlton
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 1:2012cv00393
Filed: June 14, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama
Office: Mobile Office
County: Mobile
Presiding Judge: Kristi K. DuBose
Presiding Judge: Katherine P. Nelson
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 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
December 6, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER ADOPTING 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by James Edward Carlton. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 12/5/2012. (copy mailed to plaintiff) (cmj)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Carlton v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: James Edward Carlton
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?