Laws v. Commissioner of Social Security
| Tammy Darlene Laws |
| Commissioner of Social Security |
| SSA |
| 8:2019cv00123 |
| January 17, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| William F Jung |
| Amanda Arnold Sansone |
| Social Security: DIWC/DIWW |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 18, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 NOTICE of pendency of related cases re #5 Related case order and track 1 notice per Local Rule 1.04(d) by Tammy Darlene Laws. Related case(s): N (Berger, Erik) |
Filing 5
RELATED CASE ORDER AND NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - track 1. Signed by Judge William F. Jung on 1/18/2019. (SAO)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER requiring electronic filing of the administrative record in Social Security cases (See 6:10-mc-95-ORL-22, Doc. 1) Signed by Judge Anne C. Conway on 7/23/10. (KMM)
|
| Filing 3 SUMMONS issued as to Commissioner of Social Security, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (KMM) |
| Filing 2 NEW CASE ASSIGNED to Judge William F. Jung and Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone. New case number: 8:19-cv-123-T-02AAS. (SJB) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Social Security (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 113A-15027662) filed by Tammy Darlene Laws. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons)(Berger, Erik) |
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 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.
