Dungee v. Colvin

Plaintiff: Theresa Mary Dungee
Defendant: Carolyn W Colvin
Case Number: 4:2013cv00481
Filed: June 13, 2013
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Tucson Division Office
County: Cochise
Presiding Judge: Charles R Pyle
Nature of Suit: Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
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
March 31, 2015 22 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDERED that this action is remanded to the Commissioner for an immediate award of benefits. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close its file in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles R Pyle on 3/31/2015. (BAR)

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: Dungee v. Colvin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Theresa Mary Dungee
Represented By: Tye Sherman Smith(Designation Retained)
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: Carolyn W Colvin
Represented By: Pamela M Wood
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.