Motley v. Astrue
4:2010cv03031 |
February 12, 2010 |
US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
4 Lincoln Office |
Thomas D. Thalken |
Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID) |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 28 ORDER - This matter is before the Court on the denial, initially and on reconsideration, of the plaintiff's application for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits based on disability. The court concludes the ALJ's decision, which repr esents the final decision of the Commissioner of the SSA, does not contain the errors alleged by Motley. The decision of the Commissioner is affirmed, the appeal is denied, and a separate Judgment in favor of the defendant will be entered. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (JAB) |
Filing 5 ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The US Marshal shall serve the summons and complaint without payment of costs or fees. To obtain service of process on the defendant, the plaintiff must complete and return 3 summons forms and 3 USM-285 forms. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (JSF) |
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 Nebraska District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Motley v. Astrue | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.