Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff: Nathan C. Thomas
Defendant: Commissioner of Social Security
Case Number: 3:2016cv00659
Filed: October 18, 2016
Court: Kentucky Western District Court
Office: Louisville Office
County: Jefferson
Presiding Judge: Dave Whalin
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42:405
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
July 20, 2017 20 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION by Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin. For reasons set forth, Court will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice by separate, final order. cc: counsel (JAC)

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 Kentucky Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Nathan C. Thomas
Represented By: Alvin D. Wax
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: Commissioner of Social Security
Represented By: L. Jay Gilbert
Represented By: Candace G. Hill
Represented By: Jason P. Snyder
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.


Why Is My Information Online?