Wright v. Colvin

Wright v. Colvin

Plaintiff:	Pamela Wright
Defendant:	Carolyn Colvin
Case Number:	3:2017cv00501
Filed:	March 27, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office:	New Haven Office
County:	New Haven
Presiding Judge:	Jeffrey A. Meyer
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
August 21, 2018	Filing 27 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND. For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, plaintiff's motion to reverse and/or remand the Commissioner's decision (Doc. # 16 ) is GRANTED. On remand, the ALJ should consider whether plaintiff met each of the criteria for listing 1.02 and explain her reasoning as to why these criteria were or were not satisfied. It is so ordered.Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/21/2018. (Lombard, N.)
January 22, 2018	Filing 21 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME. For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the Commissioner's motion for extension of time is DENIED. In light of the Commissioner's willful failure in this case to comply with the Court' s scheduling order and rules, the Court now deems the Commissioner to be in default and the briefing in this case to be complete. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(d), the Court will conduct a review of plaintiff's motion for relief to determine if plaintiff has identified evidence that is satisfactory to the Court to rule in plaintiffs favor. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/22/2018.

Date Filed

Document Text

August 21, 2018

Filing 27 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND. For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, plaintiff's motion to reverse and/or remand the Commissioner's decision (Doc. # 16 ) is GRANTED. On remand, the ALJ should consider whether plaintiff met each of the criteria for listing 1.02 and explain her reasoning as to why these criteria were or were not satisfied. It is so ordered.Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/21/2018. (Lombard, N.)

January 22, 2018

Filing 21 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME. For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the Commissioner's motion for extension of time is DENIED. In light of the Commissioner's willful failure in this case to comply with the Court' s scheduling order and rules, the Court now deems the Commissioner to be in default and the briefing in this case to be complete. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(d), the Court will conduct a review of plaintiff's motion for relief to determine if plaintiff has identified evidence that is satisfactory to the Court to rule in plaintiffs favor. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/22/2018.

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: Wright v. Colvin
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Pamela Wright
Represented By:	Meryl Anne Spat
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: Carolyn 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	[ 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?