Romero v. Social Security Administration
| Paul Mathew Romero |
| Social Security Administration |
| 1:2023cv00410 |
| May 11, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of New Mexico |
| Gregory B Wormuth |
| Social Security: DIWC/DIWW |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 13, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF RULE 73 CONSENT Received by All Parties. Related documents: 6 Consent to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge filed by Social Security Administration, 3 Consent to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge filed by Paul Mathew Romero. [THIS IS A TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] (kls) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Manuel Lucero on behalf of Social Security Administration - (Lucero, Manuel) |
| Filing 6 CONSENT TO PROCEED Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. Under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73(b), Social Security Administration voluntarily consent(s) to have United States Chief Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth conduct dispositive proceedings in this matter, including motions and trial, and order the entry of final judgment. (Verdis, Michelle)[THIS IS A TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Michelle Verdis on behalf of Social Security Administration (Verdis, Michelle) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE: The parties are notified that effective December 1, 2022, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to add Supplemental Rules for Social Security cases filed under 42 U.S.C 405(g). Pursuant to Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions under 42 U.S.C. 405(g), the Clerk hereby transmits a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) using the Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system to the Social Security Administration's Office of General Counsel and to the United States Attorney's Office, notifying the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration of the filing of a Complaint in this action. The parties should review and comply with these rules in full. In relevant part, the rules result in the following changes: 1. Eliminate the need for service under FED. R. CIV. P. 4. Instead, the Court will transmit a Notice of Electronic Filing to the SSA's Office of General Counsel and the USAO for the district where the action is filed. 2. Require the Commissioner to file the administrative record within 60 days of receipt of the Notice of Electronic Filing. 3. Require the parties to adhere to the following briefing schedule: - Plaintiff's brief due 30 days after answer/administrative record filed and served. - Commissioners response due 30 days after plaintiffs brief filed and served. - Plaintiffs reply due 14 days after the Commissioners response filed and served.[THIS IS A TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] re #1 Complaint (bc) |
| Filing 3 CONSENT TO PROCEED Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. Under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73(b), Paul Mathew Romero voluntarily consent(s) to have United States Chief Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth conduct dispositive proceedings in this matter, including motions and trial, and order the entry of final judgment. (Johnson, Laura)[THIS IS A TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] |
| Filing 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this case has been randomly assigned to United States Chief Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth to conduct dispositive proceedings in this matter, including motions and trial. Appeal from a judgment entered by a Magistrate Judge will be to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Consent is strictly voluntary, and a party is free to withhold consent without adverse consequences. Should a party choose to consent, notice should be made no later than 21 days after entry of the Order setting the Rule 16 Initial Scheduling Conference. For e-filers, visit our Web site at www.nmd.uscourts.gov for more information and instructions.[THIS IS A TEXT-ONLY ENTRY. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS ATTACHED.] (bc) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Social Security Administration ( Filing Fee - Online Payment), filed by Paul Mathew Romero. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Johnson, Laura) |
| Filing and Administrative Fees Received: $ 402 receipt number ANMDC-8819538 re #1 Complaint filed by Paul Mathew Romero (Payment made via Pay.gov)(Johnson, Laura) |
| United States Chief Magistrate Judge Gregory B. Wormuth assigned. (bc) |
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 New Mexico 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: Romero v. Social Security Administration | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Paul Mathew Romero | |
| Represented By: | Laura J. Johnson |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: Social Security Administration | |
| Represented By: | Manuel Lucero |
| Represented By: | Michelle Verdis |
| 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.
