LYTLE v. ASTRUE

LYTLE v. ASTRUE

Plaintiff:	DEBORAH S LYTLE
Defendant:	MICHAEL J ASTRUE
Case Number:	5:2008cv00315
Filed:	October 14, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Florida
Office:	Social Security: SSID Tit. XIV Office
County:	Jackson
Presiding Judge:	STEPHAN P MICKLE
Presiding Judge:	WILLIAM C SHERRILL
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By:	42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

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
October 2, 2009	Filing 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 23 Report and Recommendation; GRANTING 22 Motion to Remand filed by MICHAEL J ASTRUE. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE STEPHAN P MICKLE on 10/02/2009. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment reversing the Commissioners decision to deny benefits. The Plaintiffs application is remanded to the Commissioner for rehearing pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (kdm)
June 30, 2009	Filing 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, re 22 MOTION to Remand filed by MICHAEL J ASTRUE: It is RECOMMENDED that the court GRANT Defendant's motion for entry of judgment and remand, doc. 22 , DIRECT the Clerk to enter final judgment REV ERSING the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits, and REMAND the application to the Commissioner for rehearing pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the purposes stated in the motion. R&R flag set. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM C SHERRILL, JR on 06/30/2009. (Internal deadline for referral to district judge if objections are not filed earlier: 7/28/2009.) (krb)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 2, 2009

Filing 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 23 Report and Recommendation; GRANTING 22 Motion to Remand filed by MICHAEL J ASTRUE. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE STEPHAN P MICKLE on 10/02/2009. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment reversing the Commissioners decision to deny benefits. The Plaintiffs application is remanded to the Commissioner for rehearing pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (kdm)

June 30, 2009

Filing 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, re 22 MOTION to Remand filed by MICHAEL J ASTRUE: It is RECOMMENDED that the court GRANT Defendant's motion for entry of judgment and remand, doc. 22 , DIRECT the Clerk to enter final judgment REV ERSING the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits, and REMAND the application to the Commissioner for rehearing pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the purposes stated in the motion. R&R flag set. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM C SHERRILL, JR on 06/30/2009. (Internal deadline for referral to district judge if objections are not filed earlier: 7/28/2009.) (krb)

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: LYTLE v. ASTRUE
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: MICHAEL J ASTRUE
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 ]
Plaintiff: DEBORAH S LYTLE
Represented By:	HEATHER FREEMAN
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?