Haddad v. Colvin
| Bret Haddad |
| Carolyn W. Colvin and Social Security Administration |
| 3:2016cv02023 |
| December 12, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Fairfield |
| Alfred V. Covello |
| Supplemental Security Income |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
24
ORDER granting 14 Motion to Reverse and/or Remand; denying 18 Motion to Affirm. For the reasons set forth in the attached Ruling, Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted and the Commissioner's motion to affirm is denied. This case i s remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. This is not a recommended ruling. The consent of the parties allows this magistrate judge to direct the entry of a judgment of the district court in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Appeals can be made directly to the appropriate United States Court of Appeals from this judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3); Fed.R.Civ.P. 73(c). The Clerk's Office is instructed that, if any party appeals to this Court the decision made after this remand, any subsequent social security appeal is to be assigned to the Magistrate Judge who issued the ruling that remanded the case. Signed by Judge William I. Garfinkel on 5/2/18. (Cates, S)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
