Snovelle v. Barnhart

Snovelle v. Barnhart

Case Number:	3:2006cv00082
Filed:	January 13, 2006
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of California
Office:	San Diego Office
Presiding Judge:	William Q. Hayes
Presiding Judge:	Barbara Lynn Major
Nature of Suit:	Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Jury Demanded By:	None

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
January 26, 2012	Filing 77 ORDER: The Report and Recommendations (Docs. 75 , 76 ) are adopted in their entirety. Plaintiff's (Doc. 44 ) Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part. Defendant's (Doc. 50 ) Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Plaintiff&# 039;s (Doc. 63 ) Motion for Remand with Contingencies is denied. This action is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security Administration under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) for a new hearing before an administrative law judge for f urther consideration consistent with this opinion. The Clerk of the Court shall administratively close this case. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 1/26/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc) Modified on 1/26/2012 - Certified copy sent to SSA, Baltimore, MD. (mdc)
April 28, 2011	Filing 47 ORDER Re: Plaintiff's Proposed New Evidence: Because this Court cannot consider Plaintiff's proposed new evidence in conjunction with her pending motion for summary judgment and because Plaintiff did not submit the new evidence as part of a motion for remand, this Court was required to reject it for filing. Absent any subsequent changes to the posture of this case, this Court will proceed with reviewing the decision of the Commissioner in light of the administrative record on file. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 4/28/2011.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 26, 2012

Filing 77 ORDER: The Report and Recommendations (Docs. 75 , 76 ) are adopted in their entirety. Plaintiff's (Doc. 44 ) Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part. Defendant's (Doc. 50 ) Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Plaintiff&# 039;s (Doc. 63 ) Motion for Remand with Contingencies is denied. This action is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security Administration under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) for a new hearing before an administrative law judge for f urther consideration consistent with this opinion. The Clerk of the Court shall administratively close this case. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 1/26/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc) Modified on 1/26/2012 - Certified copy sent to SSA, Baltimore, MD. (mdc)

April 28, 2011

Filing 47 ORDER Re: Plaintiff's Proposed New Evidence: Because this Court cannot consider Plaintiff's proposed new evidence in conjunction with her pending motion for summary judgment and because Plaintiff did not submit the new evidence as part of a motion for remand, this Court was required to reject it for filing. Absent any subsequent changes to the posture of this case, this Court will proceed with reviewing the decision of the Commissioner in light of the administrative record on file. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 4/28/2011.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(leh)

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

Search for this case: Snovelle v. Barnhart
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| 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?