Starling v. Astrue
Plaintiff: Pearlie M Starling
Defendant: Michael J Astrue
Case Number: 8:2008cv00590
Filed: February 19, 2008
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Anderson/Greenwood Office
County: Georgetown
Presiding Judge: Patrick Michael Duffy
Presiding Judge: Bruce Howe Hendricks
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 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
August 17, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 45 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Hendricks affirming decision of Commissioner denying benefits. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 8/17/09. (chub, )
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: Starling 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: Pearlie M Starling
Represented By: Helen Tyler McFadden
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
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?