Rowe v. SSID
Plaintiff: Chris Rowe
Defendant: SSID
Case Number: 1:2016cv00721
Filed: March 23, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Office: Cleveland Office
County: Cuyahoga
Presiding Judge: James S. Gwin
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 28:1331
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 18, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 3 Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 4/18/16 granting the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e). The Court further certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3). (Related Docs. 1 and 2 ) (D,MA)
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 Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rowe v. SSID
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Chris Rowe
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 ]
Defendant: SSID
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.


Why Is My Information Online?