Christina Eaton v. Andrew Saul
| Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security Administration |
| Christina L. Eaton |
| 20-2932 |
| September 16, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| Christina Eaton v. Kilolo Kijakazi |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 13, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| CLERK ORDER:Appellant's brief was due on November 5, 2020, but has not been filed. It is hereby ordered that appellant show cause, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Response of Christina L. Eaton due 11/30/2020 [4975424] [20-2932] (LMT) [Entered: 11/13/2020 11:42 AM] |
| JUDGE ORDER: Appellant's motion [ # 4969586-2 ] to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis filed by Ms. Rebecca M. Randles is granted. Adp Oct 2020 [4971663] [20-2932] (CMH) [Entered: 11/02/2020 08:35 AM] |
| UPDATED fee status - [Case Number 20-2932: pending] [4969982] [20-2932] (CMH) [Entered: 10/27/2020 01:11 PM] |
| MOTION for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, filed by Attorney Ms. Rebecca M. Randles for Appellant Ms. Christina L. Eaton w/service 10/26/2020. [4969586] [20-2932] (RMR) [Entered: 10/26/2020 03:44 PM] |
| CLERK ORDER:The $505 appellate filing and docketing fee has not been paid and is due. Appellant is directed to either pay the fee in the district court or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this court within 28 days of the date of this order. If appellant does not pay the fee or move for IFP status by 11/12/2020, this appeal may be dismissed for failure to prosecute without further notice. [4965396] [20-2932] (CMH) [Entered: 10/14/2020 01:09 PM] |
| APPEARANCE filed by Sean N. Stewart for Appellee Mr. Andrew Saul w/service 09/17/2020 [4956620] [20-2932] (SS) [Entered: 09/17/2020 08:15 AM] |
| Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, docket entries, Order and Judgment both dated 7/28/2020, and Order dated 9/16/2020. [4956477] [20-2932] (CMH) [Entered: 09/16/2020 03:18 PM] |
| BRIEFING SCHEDULE SET AS FOLLOWS: Administrative Record due 10/26/2020. Appendix due 11/05/2020. BRIEF APPELLANT, Christina L. Eaton due 11/05/2020 Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [4956481] [20-2932] (CMH) [Entered: 09/16/2020 03:20 PM] |
| Civil case docketed. [4956446] [20-2932] (CMH) [Entered: 09/16/2020 02:43 PM] |
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: Christina Eaton 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 Saul, Commissioner of Social Security Administration | |
| Represented By: | Matthew N. Sparks |
| Represented By: | Sean Stewart |
| 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: Christina L. Eaton | |
| Represented By: | Rebecca M. Randles |
| 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.
