Simmons v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Justia Dockets & Filings Fourth Circuit South Carolina District Court Simmons v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Simmons v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Plaintiff:	Kevin McKinley Simmons
Defendant:	Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Case Number:	5:2013cv00219
Filed:	January 23, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office:	Orangeburg Office
County:	Colleton
Presiding Judge:	J Michelle Childs
Presiding Judge:	Kaymani D West
Nature of Suit:	Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1383 Review of HHS Decision
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
June 11, 2015	Filing 41 OPINION AND ORDER granting 37 Motion to Alter Judgment: The court GRANTS Defendant's Rule 59(e) motion. The court fully adopts the Recommendation (ECF No. 28) and affirms Defendants final decision denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 6/11/2015.(gnan )
September 25, 2014	Filing 35 ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court ACCEPTS IN PART AND REJECTS IN PART the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation incorporating it by reference, and REVERSES the final decision of the Commissione r denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and REMANDS the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 9/25/2014. (gnan, )

Date Filed

Document Text

June 11, 2015

Filing 41 OPINION AND ORDER granting 37 Motion to Alter Judgment: The court GRANTS Defendant's Rule 59(e) motion. The court fully adopts the Recommendation (ECF No. 28) and affirms Defendants final decision denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 6/11/2015.(gnan )

September 25, 2014

Filing 35 ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court ACCEPTS IN PART AND REJECTS IN PART the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation incorporating it by reference, and REVERSES the final decision of the Commissione r denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and REMANDS the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 9/25/2014. (gnan, )

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: Simmons v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Kevin McKinley Simmons
Represented By:	Beatrice E Whitten
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: Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
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?