Sandie Jo Jones v. Nancy A. Berryhill

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District Sandie Jo Jones v. Nancy A. Berryhill

Sandie Jo Jones v. Nancy A. Berryhill

Plaintiff:	Sandie Jo Jones
Defendant:	Nancy A. Berryhill
Case Number:	2:2017cv01789
Filed:	March 6, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Dolly M. Gee
Presiding Judge:	Frederick F. Mumm
Nature of Suit:	Social Security: DIWC/DIWW

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
December 29, 2017	Filing 22 JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. It is Hereby Adjudged that the decision of the defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security Administration, is affirmed and this action is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (sp)
August 29, 2017	Filing 14 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 9/12/2017: To date, Plaintiff has not filed a motion for summary judgment or sought an extension of time within which to do so. (See generally Dkt.) Therefore, plaintiff is ordered to show cause, in writing and within fourteen (14) days of the date this Order, why this case should not be dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. Plaintiff is hereby warned that failure to respond to this Order may result in the dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court order. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jm)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 29, 2017

Filing 22 JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. It is Hereby Adjudged that the decision of the defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security Administration, is affirmed and this action is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (sp)

August 29, 2017

Filing 14 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 9/12/2017: To date, Plaintiff has not filed a motion for summary judgment or sought an extension of time within which to do so. (See generally Dkt.) Therefore, plaintiff is ordered to show cause, in writing and within fourteen (14) days of the date this Order, why this case should not be dismissed based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. Plaintiff is hereby warned that failure to respond to this Order may result in the dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court order. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jm)

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: Sandie Jo Jones v. Nancy A. Berryhill
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Nancy A. Berryhill
Represented By:	Jean M Turk
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: Sandie Jo Jones
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?