Crutchley v. Colvin

Plaintiff: Edward James Crutchley
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number: 1:2013cv00048
Filed: March 25, 2013
Court: Georgia Southern District Court
Office: Augusta Office
County: Richmond
Referring Judge: W. Leon Barfield
Presiding Judge: J. Randal Hall
Nature of Suit: Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
November 5, 2013 16 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendation. Therefore, this case is dismissed without prejudice under Loc. R. 41.1 for want of prosecution, and this civil action is closed. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 11/05/2013. (thb) Modified on 11/5/2013 (thb).

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 Georgia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Crutchley v. Colvin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Edward James Crutchley
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Represented By: Tiffany M. Mallory
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 [ 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.