Lovelady v. Astrue

Lovelady v. Astrue

Plaintiff:	Randy Lovelady
Defendant:	Michael J. Astrue
Case Number:	4:2011cv01922
Filed:	November 4, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office:	St. Louis Office
County:	St. Louis - County
Presiding Judge:	Nannette A Baker
Nature of Suit:	Disability Insurance
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 205
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
September 25, 2013	Filing 21 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the relief which Lovelady seeks in his Complaint and Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. [Docs.1, 17] 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner for consultative examination and a new determination consistent with this opinion.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Judgment of Reversal and Remand will be filedcontemporaneously with this Memorandum and Order remanding th is case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further consideration pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall substitute Carolyn W. Colvin for Michael J. Astrue in the court record of this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 9/25/13. (CLA)
November 15, 2011	Filing 3 ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis [#2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to issue on the complaint. 2 Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A Baker on 11/15/11. (CLA)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 25, 2013

Filing 21 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the relief which Lovelady seeks in his Complaint and Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. [Docs.1, 17] 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner for consultative examination and a new determination consistent with this opinion.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Judgment of Reversal and Remand will be filedcontemporaneously with this Memorandum and Order remanding th is case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further consideration pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall substitute Carolyn W. Colvin for Michael J. Astrue in the court record of this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 9/25/13. (CLA)

November 15, 2011

Filing 3 ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis [#2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to issue on the complaint. 2 Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A Baker on 11/15/11. (CLA)

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

Search for this case: Lovelady v. Astrue
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Represented By:	Nicholas P. Llewellyn
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 ]
Plaintiff: Randy Lovelady
Represented By:	Theresa L. Severs
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?