Reams v. Astrue

Plaintiff: Mark Merle Reams
Defendant: Michael J Astrue
Case Number: 4:2010cv00640
Filed: October 26, 2010
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Tucson Division Office
County: Pima
Presiding Judge: Glenda E Edmonds
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42:1383
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
November 9, 2011 23 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying as moot 20 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Glenda E Edmonds on 11/9/11.(SMBE)
June 9, 2011 18 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ; Final decision of the Commissioner is reversed. Case is remanded for payment of benefits. Clerk to enter Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Glenda E Edmonds on 6/9/11. (SMBE)

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

Search for this case: Reams v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Michael J Astrue
Represented By: Michael Howard
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 ]
Plaintiff: Mark Merle Reams
Represented By: Meghan McNamara Miller
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?