Lofton v. Colvin

Plaintiff: Fordelma Lofton
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number: 3:2013cv00528
Filed: April 15, 2013
Court: Connecticut District Court
Office: New Haven Office
County: Fairfield
Presiding Judge: Joan G. Margolis
Nature of Suit: Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405dc Review of SSA Decision SSDC - Concurrent Title II and Title XVI Claims
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
May 13, 2015 31 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 17 Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner; granting 19 Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner; Approving 24 Recommended Ruling; Plaintiff's Objection 29 is overruled. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 5/13/15. (Tooker, A.)

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

Search for this case: Lofton v. Colvin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Fordelma Lofton
Represented By: Charles A. Pirro, III
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
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 [ 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.