Douglas v. Astrue
| Darrell R. Douglas |
| Michael J. Astrue |
| 2:2011cv00037 |
| July 20, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Northern Division Office |
| NORTHAMPTON |
| James C. Dever |
| Supplemental Security Income |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 206 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
21
ORDER denying 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and granting 18 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 810/2012. (Sawyer, D.)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- 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: Douglas v. Astrue | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Michael J. Astrue | |
| 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: Darrell R. Douglas | |
| Represented By: | Lawrence Wittenberg |
| 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.
