Surrett v. Commissioner of Social Security
| Cody Surrett |
| Commissioner of Social Security |
| SSA Noticing and US Attorney-Social Security Noticing |
| 1:2024cv00111 |
| April 12, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina |
| Max O Cogburn |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 0205 Denial Social Security Benefits |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 12, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Social Security ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ANCWDC-6480854), filed by Cody Surrett.(Dalton, Aaron) Modified defendant from All Defendants to named defendant on 4/12/2024 (cly). |
| Notice to answer Social Security Complaint: Answer due from Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on or by 60 days from the filing of this notice. (Commissioner of Social Security answer due 6/11/2024.) (cly) |
| Case assigned to District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. This is your only notice - you will not receive a separate document. (cly) |
| Pursuant to the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions under 42 U.S.C. 405(g), Rule 3; The Clerk has issued a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) using the Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system, notifying the appropriate Regional Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel and the United States Attorney's Office of the case. No summonses shall issue. (cly) |
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.
