Rodgers v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Ohio Southern District Rodgers v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Rodgers v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Plaintiff:	Billy Rodgers
Defendant:	Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Case Number:	3:2007cv00179
Filed:	May 10, 2007
Court:	U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office:	Dayton Office
County:	MONTGOMERY
Presiding Judge:	Michael R Merz
Presiding Judge:	Walter H Rice
Nature of Suit:	Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
March 12, 2013	Filing 18 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz (Doc. No. 17 ), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b ), and noting that n o objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired on March 11, 2013, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act be, and it hereby is, DENIED.Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 3/12/2013. (kf)
February 21, 2013	Filing 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees Under Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2412(d) be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 3/11/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 2/21/2013. (kpf1)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 12, 2013

Filing 18 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz (Doc. No. 17 ), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b ), and noting that n o objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired on March 11, 2013, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act be, and it hereby is, DENIED.Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 3/12/2013. (kf)

February 21, 2013

Filing 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees Under Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2412(d) be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 3/11/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 2/21/2013. (kpf1)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rodgers v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Billy Rodgers
Represented By:	Steven Barry Horenstein
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	[ Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Represented By:	John J Stark
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	[ 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?