Ragan v. Astrue
Plaintiff: Wendy Lee Ragan
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 3:2011cv00679
Filed: November 2, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
Office: Jackson Office
County: Rankin
Presiding Judge: Tom S. Lee
Presiding Judge: Michael T. Parker
Nature of Suit: Disability Insurance
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 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
October 2, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 17 ORDER ADOPTING 12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting 9 Motion to Affirm filed by Michael J. Astrue; denying 7 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Wendy Lee Ragan. A separate judgment wil be entered. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 10/2/12 (LWE)
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 Mississippi Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Ragan v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Wendy Lee Ragan
Represented By: William Owen Mayfield
Represented By: Samuel A. Montgomery
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 ]
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 ]

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?