Pena v. Berryhill

Pena v. Berryhill

Plaintiff:	Marina Pena
Defendant:	Nancy A. Berryhill
Case Number:	3:2017cv01822
Filed:	September 8, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of California
Office:	San Diego Office
County:	Imperial
Presiding Judge:	Anthony J. Battaglia
Presiding Judge:	Karen S. Crawford
Nature of Suit:	Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 0405
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 31, 2019	Filing 22 ORDER granting 14 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting re 21 Report and Recommendation. The Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOP TS Magistrate Judge Crawford's R&R, (Doc. No. 21); (2) GRANTS Defendant's summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 14); and (3) DENIES Plaintiff's summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 17). The Court Clerk is instructed to close the case. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 1/31/2019. (acc) (sjt).
July 30, 2018	Filing 21 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 14 and 17 MOTIONS for Summary Judgment. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT: 1. GRANT defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 14]. 2. DENY plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judg ment [Doc. No. 17]. Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, "any party may serve and file written objections." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)&(C). Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 7/30/2018.(acc)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 31, 2019

Filing 22 ORDER granting 14 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting re 21 Report and Recommendation. The Court finds it thorough, well-reasoned, and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court hereby: (1) ADOP TS Magistrate Judge Crawford's R&R, (Doc. No. 21); (2) GRANTS Defendant's summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 14); and (3) DENIES Plaintiff's summary judgment motion, (Doc. No. 17). The Court Clerk is instructed to close the case. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 1/31/2019. (acc) (sjt).

July 30, 2018

Filing 21 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 14 and 17 MOTIONS for Summary Judgment. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT THE DISTRICT COURT: 1. GRANT defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 14]. 2. DENY plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judg ment [Doc. No. 17]. Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, "any party may serve and file written objections." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)&(C). Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 7/30/2018.(acc)

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: Pena v. Berryhill
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Marina Pena
Represented By:	Cyrus Safa
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 ]
Defendant: Nancy A. Berryhill
Represented By:	U S Attorney CV(Designation Assistant United States Attorney)
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?