Nelson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Eastern District Nelson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Nelson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff:	Tamara Nelson
Defendant:	Commissioner of Social Security
Case Number:	1:2014cv01109
Filed:	February 20, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	John Gleeson
Nature of Suit:	Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
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 6, 2017	Filing 24 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: In February 2014, plaintiff Tamara Nelsop filed a complaint, seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") finding that her disability had ended in April 2010. (Mem. & Ord er at 5, ECF No. 18). On December 31, 2014, Judge John Gleeson issued a Memorandum and Order (the "Order") remanding Nelson's case to the Commissioner for the calculation and award of benefits. (Id. at 21). On November 14, 2016 appeari ng pro se, plaintiff filed a letter motion, which requested that the Court seal her casefile because some "law research blogs" had posted the Order online and the publication of this information was frightening her. (Letter, ECF No. 17). Wi thout elaboration, Nelson also asserted that the publication of this material had caused her to fear for her safety. (Id.). On December 6, 2016, the Court denied Nelson's motion to seal this ordinary public court record. (Order Denying Mot. to S eal, ECF No. 21). For the reasons discussed above, Nelson's motion for reconsideration and for an order sealing her docket is denied. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be take n in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States369 U.S. 438, 82 S. Ct. 917, 920-21, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff and to maintain this case on the closed docket. (See attachment for full Memorandum & Order). Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 4/6/2017. (Basnight, Jasmine)
December 31, 2014	Filing 18 ORDER denying 12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: For the reasons explained in the attached Order, the Commissioner's motion is denied and the case is remanded to the Commissioner solely for the calculation and award of benefits. Ordered by Judge John Gleeson on 12/31/2014. (Levin, Sarah)

Date Filed

Document Text

April 6, 2017

Filing 24 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: In February 2014, plaintiff Tamara Nelsop filed a complaint, seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") finding that her disability had ended in April 2010. (Mem. & Ord er at 5, ECF No. 18). On December 31, 2014, Judge John Gleeson issued a Memorandum and Order (the "Order") remanding Nelson's case to the Commissioner for the calculation and award of benefits. (Id. at 21). On November 14, 2016 appeari ng pro se, plaintiff filed a letter motion, which requested that the Court seal her casefile because some "law research blogs" had posted the Order online and the publication of this information was frightening her. (Letter, ECF No. 17). Wi thout elaboration, Nelson also asserted that the publication of this material had caused her to fear for her safety. (Id.). On December 6, 2016, the Court denied Nelson's motion to seal this ordinary public court record. (Order Denying Mot. to S eal, ECF No. 21). For the reasons discussed above, Nelson's motion for reconsideration and for an order sealing her docket is denied. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be take n in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States369 U.S. 438, 82 S. Ct. 917, 920-21, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff and to maintain this case on the closed docket. (See attachment for full Memorandum & Order). Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 4/6/2017. (Basnight, Jasmine)

December 31, 2014

Filing 18 ORDER denying 12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: For the reasons explained in the attached Order, the Commissioner's motion is denied and the case is remanded to the Commissioner solely for the calculation and award of benefits. Ordered by Judge John Gleeson on 12/31/2014. (Levin, Sarah)

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 York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Nelson 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 ]
Defendant: Commissioner of Social Security
Represented By:	Karen T. Callahan
Represented By:	SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION - GENERIC
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: Tamara Nelson
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?