Motley v. Astrue
Case Number: 4:2010cv03031
Filed: February 12, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Nebraska
Office: 4 Lincoln Office
Presiding Judge: Thomas D. Thalken
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
May 3, 2011 Opinion or Order 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)
February 16, 2010 Opinion or Order 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)
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 Nebraska District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

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.


Why Is My Information Online?