Pamela Denise Crayton v. Carolyn W. Colvin
Plaintiff: Pamela Denise Crayton
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number: 2:2015cv03550
Filed: May 12, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: David T. Bristow
Presiding Judge: S. James Otero
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 22, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 43 JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon: The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED Re Memorandum Opinion and Order 42 . (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ib)
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 California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Pamela Denise Crayton v. Carolyn W. Colvin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Represented By: Assistant US Attorney LA-CV
Represented By: Assistant US Attorney LA-SSA
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: Pamela Denise Crayton
Represented By: Suzanne C Leidner
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?