McDivit v. Commissioner of Social Security
| 2:2009cv02155 |
| November 10, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI Office |
| Peggy A. Leen |
| Peggy A. Leen |
| None |
| U.S. Government Defendant |
| 42:1983 Civil Rights Act |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
3
ORDER Affirming and Adopting Report and Recommendations 2 Report and Recommendation Denying 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Payment of filing fees due in 15 days. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/6/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AXM)
|
|
Filing
2
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending that Plaintiff's 1 MOTION/APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED, that Plaintiff be required to pay the filing fee of $350.00, and that failure to do so within the time set by the district judge should result in dismissal of this action. Objections to R&R due by 12/18/2009. Clerk to retain complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 11/25/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)
|
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 Nevada 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: McDivit v. Commissioner of Social Security | |
|---|---|
| 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.
