Christopher Washington v. Andrew Saul
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security |
CHRISTOPHER E. WASHINGTON |
19-2152 |
June 17, 2019 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
Description |
---|
Christopher Washington v. Andrew Saul |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on July 22, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Terminated Attorney Tina L. Nommay for Andrew M. Saul in 19-2152 and added Attorney(s) Nathaniel Whalen for party(s) Appellee Andrew M. Saul, in case 19-2152 pursuant to email notification from the Office of the U.S. Attorney regarding counsel of record. [7018574-2] [7018574] [19-2152] (CMD) [Entered: 07/22/2019 11:18 AM] |
Filing 7 10 copies Appellant's brief filed by Appellant Christopher E. Washington. Disk not required. [7] [7017585] [19-2152] (DSL) [Entered: 07/16/2019 02:43 PM] |
Filing 6 ORDER: This court received notice from the District Court that the appellant paid the required $505 docketing fee. Briefing will proceed as follows: Appellant's brief due on or before 08/08/2019 for Christopher E. Washington. Appellee's brief due on or before 09/09/2019 for Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security. Appellant's reply brief, if any, is due on or before 09/30/2019 for Appellant Christopher E. Washington [6] [7016078] [19-2152] (CM) [Entered: 07/09/2019 12:25 PM] |
Filing 5 Filed notice from the District Court that the appeal $505 docketing fee was received. [5] [7016077] [19-2152] (CM) [Entered: 07/09/2019 12:24 PM] |
Filing 4 Prose motion filed by Appellant Christopher E. Washington to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. [4] [7013843] [19-2152] (MM) [Entered: 06/26/2019 04:43 PM] |
Filing 3 Docketing Statement filed by Appellant Christopher E. Washington. Prior or Related proceedings: No. [3] [7013246] [19-2152] (VG) [Entered: 06/24/2019 03:49 PM] |
Filing 2 Filed District Court order DENYING Appellant Christopher E. Washington leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Date IFP denied: 06/20/2019. The Motion for Issuance of Subpoena is DENIED because the motion to which it relates, Plaintiffs Motion to Impose Sanctions, is no longer pending and this case is closed.Issued Circuit Rule 3(b) 30 day notice for failure to pay the docketing fee. Fee or IFP forms due on 07/24/2019 for Appellant Christopher E. Washington [7013032] [2] [7013032] [19-2152] (AP) [Entered: 06/24/2019 08:40 AM] |
Filing 1 U.S. civil case docketed. IFP pending in the District Court. Docketing Statement due for Appellant Christopher E. Washington by 06/24/2019. Transcript information sheet due by 07/01/2019. [1] [7011912] [19-2152] (AG) [Entered: 06/18/2019 10:17 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Search for this case: Christopher Washington v. Andrew Saul | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant / appellee: ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security | |
Represented By: | Tina L. Nommay |
Represented By: | Nathaniel Whalen |
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 / appellant: CHRISTOPHER E. WASHINGTON | |
Represented By: | Christopher E. Washington |
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.