BURTON v. COLVIN
Plaintiff: VANITA RENEE BURTON
Defendant: CAROLYN W. COLVIN
Case Number: 2:2016cv02778
Filed: June 7, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Office: Philadelphia Office
County: Philadelphia
Presiding Judge: NITZA I QUINONES ALEJANDRO
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
February 12, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 22 MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS DENIED AND JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE LYNNE A. SITARSKI ON 2/12/2018. 2/12/2018 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(amas)
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: BURTON v. COLVIN
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: VANITA RENEE BURTON
Represented By: F. MICHAEL FRIEDMAN
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: CAROLYN W. COLVIN
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?