Clove v. Kijakazi
| Craig L. Clove |
| Kijakazi and Kilolo Kijakazi |
| SSA-Office of the General Counsel |
| 2:2023cv01403 |
| September 8, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Daniel J Albregts |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 205 Denial Social Security Benefits |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 2, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney L. Jamala Edwards on behalf of Defendant Kilolo Kijakazi. (Edwards, L.) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE to Clerk of Court Regarding Assignment of Social Security Cases. (Document restricted under General Order 2019-08.) (AMMi) |
| Case randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts. (AMMi) |
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties by Craig L. Clove. There are no known interested parties other than those participating in the case (Kalagian, Marc) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Kijakazi (Filing fee $402 receipt number ANVDC-7420466) by Craig L. Clove. Certificate of Interested Parties due by 9/18/2023. Proof of service due by 12/7/2023. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) NOTICE of Certificate of Interested Parties requirement: Under Local Rule 7.1-1, a party must immediately file its disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court. |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
