Hancock v. Commissioner of Social Security
Plaintiff: Phillip Hancock
Defendant: Commissioner of Social Security
Case Number: 3:2021cv00332
Filed: December 15, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Presiding Judge: Caroline H Gentry
Referring Judge: Sharon L Ovington
2 Judge: Thomas M Rose
Nature of Suit: Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 405
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on June 1, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
February 8, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington no longer assigned to case. Signed by Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 2/8/22. (jcw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
January 31, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 7 First CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD filed by Defendant Statement of Errors due by 3/17/2022. (Attachments: #1 Court Transcript, #2 Documents Related to Administrative Process, #3 Payment Documents and Decisions, #4 Jurisdictional Documents and Notices, #5 Non Disability Related Developments, #6 Disability Related Developments, #7 Medical Records Part 1, #8 Medical Records Part 2, #9 Medical Records Part 3, #10 Medical Records Part 4, #11 Medical Records Part 5, #12 Medical Records Part 6) (Stark, John)
January 7, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER OF CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge. This case is referred to Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 01/07/2022. (jmb)
January 6, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 5 JOINT CONSENT OF THE PARTIES TO PROCEED BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE . (Julis, Rachel)
January 4, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Rachel Julis for Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (Julis, Rachel)
December 17, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 2 COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Social Security, filed by Phillip Hancock. (bjr)
December 17, 2021 Opinion or Order Reset Deadline: Commissioner of Social Security answer due 2/15/2022. (srb)
December 16, 2021 Opinion or Order NOTATION ORDER granting #1 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 12-16-21. (zcc)
December 15, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Phillip Hancock. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Complaint, #3 SSA ID Form) (Rake, Michael)

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: Hancock 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: Phillip Hancock
Represented By: Michael A Rake
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
Represented By: Rachel Julis
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?