Bailey v. Astrue
Plaintiff: Michelle Bailey
Defendant: Michael J Astrue
Case Number: 5:2012cv00334
Filed: March 28, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
Office: Oklahoma City Office
County: Stephens
Presiding Judge: Joe Heaton
Presiding Judge: Bana Roberts
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
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
June 28, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 17 of Magistrate Judge Shon Erwin reversing the final decision of the Commissioner and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with the report and recommendation. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 06/28/2013. (lam)
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 Oklahoma Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bailey v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michelle Bailey
Represented By: Miles L Mitzner
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: Michael J Astrue
Represented By: Virginia Watson Keyes
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?