Pyles v. Astrue
Georgetta Louise Pyles |
Michael J. Astrue |
1:2011cv00116 |
May 12, 2011 |
US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina |
Asheville Office |
Buncombe |
Dennis Howell |
Martin Reidinger |
Disability Insurance |
42 U.S.C. ยง 427 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 13 JUDGMENT that the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and the Commissioner's decision is hereby AFFIRMED. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 4/9/12. (nll) |
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: Pyles 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: Georgetta Louise Pyles | |
Represented By: | V. Lamar Gudger, III |
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.