Dailey v. Social Security Administration

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Tennessee Middle District Dailey v. Social Security Administration

Dailey v. Social Security Administration

Plaintiff:	Mark Allen Dailey
Defendant:	Social Security Administration
Case Number:	2:2011cv00098
Filed:	September 20, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Office:	Cookeville Office
County:	Clay
Presiding Judge:	Juliet E. Griffin
Presiding Judge:	Thomas Wiseman
Nature of Suit:	Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405
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
May 17, 2013	Filing 24 ORDER: The Report and Recommendation is adopted by this Court. For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, 19 , is DENIED, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this case is DISMISSED. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas Wiseman on 5/17/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
April 25, 2013	Filing 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 19 : Upon review of the Administrative Record as a whole, the Court finds that the Commissioner's determination that the plaintiff is not disabled under the Act is supported by substantial evidence in the recor d as required by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the plaintiffs motion for judgment on the administrative record (Docket Entry No. 19) should be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Juliet E. Griffin on 4/25/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 17, 2013

Filing 24 ORDER: The Report and Recommendation is adopted by this Court. For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, 19 , is DENIED, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this case is DISMISSED. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas Wiseman on 5/17/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

April 25, 2013

Filing 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 19 : Upon review of the Administrative Record as a whole, the Court finds that the Commissioner's determination that the plaintiff is not disabled under the Act is supported by substantial evidence in the recor d as required by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that the plaintiffs motion for judgment on the administrative record (Docket Entry No. 19) should be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Juliet E. Griffin on 4/25/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af)

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 Tennessee Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Dailey v. 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: Mark Allen Dailey
Represented By:	Michael Anthony Walker
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: 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?