Arnold v. Colvin
Plaintiff: Katherine R. Arnold
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number: 3:2015cv00607
Filed: August 19, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
Office: Northern (Jackson) Office
County: Hinds
Presiding Judge: Tom S. Lee
Presiding Judge: Robert H. Walker
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
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
November 22, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER ADOPTING 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, granting 10 Motion to Affirm filed by Carolyn W. Colvin. A separate judgment will be entered. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 11/22/16 (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: Arnold v. Colvin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Katherine R. Arnold
Represented By: Ursula K. Mitchell
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: Carolyn W. Colvin
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?