McQuillan v. Berryhill
| Tammy McQuillan |
| John H Durham, Commissioner Nancy Berryhill, Matthew G Whitaker and Nancy Berryhill |
| Tammy Lynn McQuillan |
| Social Security Administration |
| 3:2019cv00191 |
| February 7, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarah A L Merriam |
| Stefan R Underhill |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 1, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Nancy Berryhill. (Levine, Linnea) |
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Social Security Administration. (Levine, Linnea) |
| Answer deadline updated for Nancy Berryhill to 4/8/2019. (Fazekas, J.) |
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 2/7/2019.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 3
STANDING SCHEDULING ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 2/7/2019.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 2
STANDING ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 2/7/2019. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Fazekas, J.)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Nancy Berryhill, filed by Tammy McQuillan. Paid $400.00 Receipt # ACTDC-5151134. (Walker, A) |
| Judge Stefan R Underhill and Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam added. (Oliver, T.) |
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 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.
