Nestle v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Plaintiff: Deborah Nestle
Defendant: Social Security, Commissioner of
Case Number: 2:2013cv13991
Filed: September 18, 2013
Court: Michigan Eastern District Court
Office: Detroit Office
County: Tuscola
Referring Judge: David R. Grand
Presiding Judge: David M. Lawson
Nature of Suit: Disability Insurance
Cause of Action: 42:1383
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
September 18, 2015 19 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION AND ORDER Adopting 17 Report and Recommendation, Denying Plaintiff's 12 Motion to Remand, Granting Defendant's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment, and Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (SPin)

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 Michigan Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Nestle v. Social Security, Commissioner of
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Deborah Nestle
Represented By: John M. Morosi
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: Social Security, Commissioner of
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?