Agosta v. Berryhill
Plaintiff: Santo M. Agosta
Defendant: Nancy A. Berryhill
Case Number: 3:2017cv02035
Filed: November 6, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Office: Scranton Office
County: Pike
Presiding Judge: Martin C. Carlson
Presiding Judge: James M. Munley
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42:405
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
October 25, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION - We will affirm this decision, direct that judgment be entered in favor of the defendant, and instruct the clerk to close this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on October 25, 2018. (kjn)
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 Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Agosta v. Berryhill
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Santo M. Agosta
Represented By: Beth Arnold
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: Nancy A. Berryhill
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?