THOMAS v. ASTRUE
Plaintiff: CURT THOMAS
Defendant: MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Case Number: 2:2007cv02258
Filed: June 4, 2007
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Office: Philadelphia Office
County: Forest
Presiding Judge: JOHN R. PADOVA
Nature of Suit: Social Security: SSID Tit. XIV
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
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
July 15, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER THAT DEFT'S MOTION IS GRANTED. PLFF'S COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED. PLFF'S APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES IS DENIED. THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO CLOE THIS CASE STATISTICALLY. ( SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOHN R. PADOVA ON 7/14/09. ) 7/16/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(gn, )
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 Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: THOMAS 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: CURT THOMAS
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
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?