Shamah Moody v. Michael J. Astrue
Plaintiff: Shamah Moody
Defendant: Michael J Astrue
Case Number: 5:2008cv01607
Filed: January 25, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Office: Eastern Division - Riverside Office
Presiding Judge: Jacqueline Chooljian
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
January 25, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 20 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. re: First MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Remand or Reversal 18 (vm)
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: Shamah Moody v. Michael J. 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
Represented By: Nancy M Lisewski
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: Shamah Moody
Represented By: Bill LaTour
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?