Bartz v. Colvin

Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Plaintiff: Taifa Bartz
Case Number: 5:2013cv00112
Filed: February 19, 2013
Court: North Carolina Eastern District Court
Office: Western Division Office
County: WAKE
Presiding Judge: Louise Wood Flanagan
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
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
April 22, 2014 22 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 15 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 18 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; and adopting the 21 Memorandum and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 4/22/2014. (Castania, 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: Bartz v. Colvin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Represented By: Marc D. Epstein
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 ]
Plaintiff: Taifa Bartz
Represented By: Jennifer Claire Staton Simmons
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.