Bartolome Jr. v. Berryhill
Nancy A. Berryhill |
Cecilio Peralta Bartolome Jr and Cecilio Peralta Bartolome, Jr. |
5:2018cv01333 |
December 26, 2018 |
US District Court for the Western District of Texas |
Elizabeth S Chestney |
David A Ezra |
Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
42 U.S.C. ยง 416 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on February 3, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 6 ORDER LIFTING STAY. Signed by Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney. (rg) |
Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Cecilio Peralta Bartolome, Jr. (Jacques, Andree) |
Set Deadlines: Nancy A. Berryhill answer due 2/28/2019. (rg) |
Filing 4 ORDER STAYING CASE pending further Order of the Court. Signed by Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney. (rg) |
Filing 3 Summons Issued as to All Defendants, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (bc) |
Case assigned to Judge David A. Ezra. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (bc) |
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney. (bc) |
Filing 2 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by Cecilio Peralta Bartolome Jr. (Attachments: #1 Appendix Summons)(Jacques, Andree) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0542-11587504), filed by Cecilio Peralta Bartolome Jr. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Jacques, Andree) |
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 Texas Western 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.