Wood v. Saul
| Cynthia Hayes Wood |
| Andrew Saul and Andrew M. Saul |
| 1:2020cv00231 |
| August 21, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina |
| David Keesler |
| Graham Mullen |
| Social Security: DIWC/DIWW |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 7, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| TEXT-ONLY Order of Referral - Social Security. Pursuant to the Standing Order 3:13MC95, 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 72.1 this case is referred to a United States Magistrate Judge to make findings of fact, conclusions of law and to recommend disposition of any dispositive motion filed through submission of a Memorandum and Recommendation to the District Judge. Case referred to Magistrate Judge David Keesler (eef) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued Electronically to US Marshal for service as to Andrew Saul, US Attorney and US Attorney General. (Attachments: #1 USM-285s)(khm) |
Filing 3
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Clerk to issue summons to US Marshal for service. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 8/31/2020. (khm)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION (Sealed - Participants) to Proceed in forma pauperis by Cynthia Hayes Wood. (Piemonte, George) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Andrew Saul, filed by Cynthia Hayes Wood.(Piemonte, George) |
| Case assigned to Senior Judge Graham Mullen. This is your only notice - you will not receive a separate document.(reh) |
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.
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
