Marsden v. Astrue

Plaintiff: Thomas H. Marsden
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 1:2008cv00132
Filed: April 11, 2008
Court: Rhode Island District Court
Office: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW Office
County: Providence
Referring Judge: Lincoln D. Almond
Presiding Judge: William E Smith
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
March 18, 2009 15 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 11 Motion to Reverse Decision of the Commissioner; granting 14 Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner. Final judgment shall enter in favor of the Commissioner. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond on 3/17/09. (Noel, Jeannine)

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 Rhode Island District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Marsden v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Thomas H. Marsden
Represented By: Maria L. Nunez
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: 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 [ 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.