Smith v. O'Malley
| Carlton Lerosignal Smith |
| Martin O'Malley and SSA-Email Notification |
| 3:2024cv01023 |
| August 22, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Barbara D Holmes |
| Social Security: DIWC/DIWW |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 30, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| IL State Bar status verified as active for Rachel Julis admitted to this court. (ad) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Rachel Julis on behalf of Martin O'Malley (Julis, Rachel) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Consent of the Plaintiff to proceed before the Magistrate Judge. (ad) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF THE PARTIES TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE IN SOCIAL SECURITY CASES ARISING UNDER 42 U.S.C. 405(g). (mg) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE/INFORMATION regarding Consent of the Parties to the Magistrate Judge. (mg) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 217 to parties re obligation of counsel to keep Court apprised of current contact information. (mg) |
| Filing 1 SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT against Martin O'Malley (Filing fee $405, Receipt number ATNMDC-4147024), filed by Carlton Lerosignal Smith. (Attachments: #1 Attachment - Civil Cover Sheet)(mg) |
| TN State Bar status verified as active for Robert J. Parker admitted to this court. (mg) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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 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.
