Estle v. Commissioner of Social Security
Plaintiff: Alice Estle
Defendant: Commissioner of Social Security
Case Number: 3:2011cv00149
Filed: May 6, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Dayton Office
County: MONTGOMERY
Presiding Judge: Sharon L Ovington
Presiding Judge: Walter H Rice
Nature of Suit: Disability Insurance
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 405
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
May 20, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 20 Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Alice Estle, 25 Report and Recommendations,. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 5/20/2015. (ead)
April 27, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 25 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT (1) PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES (DOC. 20 ) BE GRANTED; (2) PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL BE AWARDED $11,340.72 IN ATTORNEYS FEES; AND (3) THIS CASE REMAIN TERMINATED ON THE COURTS DOCKET Objections to R&R due by 5/14/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 4/27/2015. (ead)
February 19, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 19 DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 18 ) IN ITS ENTIRETY; DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S INITIAL MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS (DOC. 16 ); AND GRANTING THE JOINT STIPULATION TO ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (DOC. 17 ). Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 2/19/2013. (kf)
January 25, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. Plaintiffs initial motion for an EAJA fees and costs award (doc. 16 ) be foundMOOT AND DENIED; 2. The stipulation for an EAJA fees and costs award (doc. 17 ), filed jointly by Plaintiff and the Commissioner -- which the Court deems timely-filed, see supra note 2 -- be GRANTED, and Plaintiff be AWARDED the sum of $3,422.63 in EAJA fees and costs; and 3. As no further matters remain pending for review, this case remain TERMINATED upon the Courts docket. Objections to R&R due by 2/11/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 01/24/2013. (kf)
September 27, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 15 JUDGMENT with Attached Notice of Disposal. Signed on 09/27/12. (pb1)
August 3, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. The Commissioners non-disability finding be found UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, and REVERSED; 2. This case be REMANDED FOR AN IMMEDIATE AWARD OF DIBAND/OR SSI BENEFITS WITH AN ONSET DATE OF OCTOBER 3, 2003; and 3. This case be CLOSED. Objections to R&R due by 8/20/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 08/03/2012. (kf)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Estle v. Commissioner of Social Security
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Alice Estle
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Commissioner of Social Security
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 [ 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?