McGee v. Astrue
Plaintiff: Kortney McGee
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 4:2011cv00063
Filed: September 19, 2011
Court: US District Court for the District of Montana
Office: Great Falls Office
County: CASCADE
Presiding Judge: Sam E Haddon
Presiding Judge: Keith Strong
Nature of Suit: Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
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 9, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) Plaintiff's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; 2) Defendant's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 7/9/2012. (SLR, )
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 Montana District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: McGee 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: Kortney McGee
Represented By: John E. Seidlitz, Jr.
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?