Marks v. Colvin

Plaintiff: James Marks
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number: 4:2014cv00004
Filed: January 10, 2014
Court: North Carolina Eastern District Court
Office: Eastern Division Office
County: LENOIR
Presiding Judge: Terrence W. Boyle
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42:205
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
September 22, 2014 24 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER GRANTING 23 Motion for Attorney Fees. The Commissioner is ordered to pay $3,561.25 in full satisfaction of EAJA fees. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 9/19/2014. (Fisher, M.)
August 12, 2014 21 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER GRANTING 19 Defendant's Motion to Remand. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 8/8/2014. (Fisher, M.)

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 North Carolina Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Marks v. Colvin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: James Marks
Represented By: Charlotte Williams Hall
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Represented By: Wanda D. Mason
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 [ 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?