Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Rebecky Hawes Miller |
Commissioner of Social Security Administration |
Social Security Administrative Record and US Attorney - Social Security Noticing |
8:2022cv00906 |
March 18, 2022 |
US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
Jacquelyn D Austin |
Margaret B Seymour |
Social Security: DIWC/DIWW |
42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC) |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on March 21, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
![]() |
![]() |
Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Restricted Access) by Rebecky Hawes Miller. Response to Motion due by 4/1/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. No proposed order. Motions referred to Jacquelyn D Austin.(arut) (Main Document 3 replaced on 3/21/2022 with corrected document) (arut). |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Social Security Administration Clerk's Note: See 28:636(b)(1)(C)(4)(c)(1) and Local Rule 83.VII.02 regarding Consent to Proceed before Magistrate Judge in Social Security cases. Consent to Proceed before Magistrate Judge forms are available on the Court's website., filed by Rebecky Hawes Miller.(arut) (Main Document 1 replaced on 3/21/2022 with corrected document) (arut). |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.