Abbott v. Colvin

Abbott v. Colvin

Plaintiff:	Nichole Abbott
Defendant:	Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number:	6:2015cv06487
Filed:	August 14, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of New York
Office:	Rochester Office
County:	Albany
Presiding Judge:	Frank P. Geraci
Nature of Suit:	Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 205
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 11, 2018	Filing 16 DECISION AND ORDER: Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's Orders and has not communicated with the Court to explain or correct the noncompliance despite being warned of the consequences of failing to respond, the Court finds that d ismissal is appropriate. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. A copy of this NEF and Order have been mailed to the pro se Plaintiff. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 4/11/2018. (AFM)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
July 25, 2017	Filing 7 DECISION AND ORDER. The Court hereby extends the time limit for service in this case to August 25, 2017. The Clerk of Court is directed to file Plaintiff's papers and cause the United States Marshal to serve copies of the Summons, Compla int, and this Order upon Defendant, to send Plaintiff a copy of Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.5, and to update the docket to reflect Plaintiff's pro se status. SO ORDERED. A Copy of this NEF and Order have been mailed to the pro se Plaintiff. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 7/25/2017. (AFM) -CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

Date Filed

Document Text

April 11, 2018

Filing 16 DECISION AND ORDER: Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's Orders and has not communicated with the Court to explain or correct the noncompliance despite being warned of the consequences of failing to respond, the Court finds that d ismissal is appropriate. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. A copy of this NEF and Order have been mailed to the pro se Plaintiff. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 4/11/2018. (AFM)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

July 25, 2017

Filing 7 DECISION AND ORDER. The Court hereby extends the time limit for service in this case to August 25, 2017. The Clerk of Court is directed to file Plaintiff's papers and cause the United States Marshal to serve copies of the Summons, Compla int, and this Order upon Defendant, to send Plaintiff a copy of Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.5, and to update the docket to reflect Plaintiff's pro se status. SO ORDERED. A Copy of this NEF and Order have been mailed to the pro se Plaintiff. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 7/25/2017. (AFM) -CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

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

Search for this case: Abbott v. Colvin
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Nichole Abbott
Represented By:	Emily Karr-Cook
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: Carolyn W. Colvin
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?