Hughes v. Commissioner Of Social Security Adm.

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Nevada District Court Hughes v. Commissioner Of Social Security Adm.

Hughes v. Commissioner Of Social Security Adm.

Plaintiff:	Margaret A Hughes
Defendant:	Commissioner Of Social Security Adm.
Case Number:	2:2012cv01787
Filed:	October 11, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office:	Las Vegas Office
Presiding Judge:	Carl W. Hoffman
Presiding Judge:	James C. Mahan
Nature of Suit:	Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
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
April 1, 2014	Filing 19 ORDER Adopting in its entirety 17 Report and Recommendation.Denying 14 Motion to Remand. Granting 15 Commissioner's Cross-Motion to Affirm. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/1/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
February 6, 2013	Filing 11 ORDER that in the event Plaintiff intends to request a remand of this case on the basis of new evidence, Plaintiff shall, within 30 days file a motion to remand in this Court based on new evidence. Defendant's response due 30 days from the date of service of such motion. Plaintiff's reply due 20 days from the date of service of response. In the event Plaintiff does not file a motion for remand on the basis of new medical evidence, the Plaintiff shall, within 30 days file with this Court a motion for reversal and/or remand. See Order for Details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 02/06/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

Date Filed

Document Text

April 1, 2014

Filing 19 ORDER Adopting in its entirety 17 Report and Recommendation.Denying 14 Motion to Remand. Granting 15 Commissioner's Cross-Motion to Affirm. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/1/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

February 6, 2013

Filing 11 ORDER that in the event Plaintiff intends to request a remand of this case on the basis of new evidence, Plaintiff shall, within 30 days file a motion to remand in this Court based on new evidence. Defendant's response due 30 days from the date of service of such motion. Plaintiff's reply due 20 days from the date of service of response. In the event Plaintiff does not file a motion for remand on the basis of new medical evidence, the Plaintiff shall, within 30 days file with this Court a motion for reversal and/or remand. See Order for Details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 02/06/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

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 Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hughes v. Commissioner Of Social Security Adm.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Commissioner Of Social Security Adm.
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: Margaret A Hughes
Represented By:	Leonard H Stone
Represented By:	Marc V Kalagian
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?