Carkhuff v. Commissioner of Social Security
| Cherilyn Faye Carkhuff |
| Commissioner of Social Security |
| SSA |
| 2:2025cv00600 |
| July 9, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Kyle C Dudek |
| Social Security: DIWC/DIWW |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 11, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEDULING ORDER: See Order for deadlines and Court requirements. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek on 7/11/2025. (CGW)
|
| Filing 5 NEW CASE ASSIGNED to Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek. New case number: 2:25-cv-600-KCD. (ARL) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of a related action per Local Rule 1.07(c) by Cherilyn Faye Carkhuff. Related case(s): No (Berger, Erik) |
| Filing 3 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT under Rule 7.1, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rule 3.03 by Cherilyn Faye Carkhuff. (Berger, Erik) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Lead Counsel Designation by Erik William Berger on behalf of Cherilyn Faye Carkhuff. Lead Counsel: Erik W. Berger. (Berger, Erik) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Social Security (Filing fee $405 receipt number AFLMDC-23586338). The plaintiff CONSENTS to jurisdiction of the United States magistrate judge filed by Cherilyn Faye Carkhuff. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Berger, Erik) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Middle 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.
