Coffey-Watson v. Astrue
Plaintiff: Candace Coffey-Watson
Defendant: Michael J Astrue
Case Number: 3:2009cv01479
Filed: June 5, 2009
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Columbia Office
County: Aiken
Presiding Judge: Richard M Gergel
Nature of Suit: Disability Insurance
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
September 28, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 28 Report and Recommendations; adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on September 28, 2010. (cwil, )
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 South Carolina District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Coffey-Watson 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: Candace Coffey-Watson
Represented By: W Daniel Mayes
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
Represented By: Beth Drake
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?