EROR v. COLVIN

Plaintiff: DENNIS MARTIN EROR, JR.
Defendant: CAROLYN W. COLVIN
Case Number: 2:2013cv00258
Filed: February 19, 2013
Court: Pennsylvania Western District Court
Office: Pittsburgh Office
County: Westmoreland
Referring Judge: Maureen P. Kelly
Presiding Judge: Terrence F. McVerry
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action: 42:405(g) Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
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
January 31, 2014 16 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 13 Motion for Summary Judgment and adopting Report and Recommendations re 15 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 1/31/2014. (kly)

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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: EROR v. COLVIN
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: DENNIS MARTIN EROR, JR.
Represented By: Karl E. Osterhout
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: CAROLYN W. COLVIN
Represented By: Michael Colville
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 [ 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.