Jacobs v. Astrue

Jacobs v. Astrue

Plaintiff:	Milton Jacobs
Defendant:	Michael J. Astrue
Case Number:	2:2012cv00508
Filed:	September 13, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Office:	Norfolk Office
County:	Norfolk City
Presiding Judge:	Douglas E. Miller
Presiding Judge:	Henry C. Morgan
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
October 22, 2013	Filing 20 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 11 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Michael J. Astrue, 16 Report and Recommendations, 9 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Milton Jacobs ; granting 9 Motion for Summary Judgment; denyi ng 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 16 Report and Recommendations. This Court has carefully and independently reviewed the relevant record in this case and the objections to the Magistrate Judge 9;s Report and Recommendation. For the reasons discussed above, the Court OVERRULES Commissioner/Defendant's objections, Doc. 17, and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Doc. 16, in its entirety. The Court DENIES Com missioner/Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 11, GRANTS Plaintiff Jacobs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 9, and AFFIRMS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the final decision of the Commissioner be REMANDED for further proceedings. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr and filed on 10/18/13. Copies distributed to all parties 10/22/13.(ldab, )

Date Filed

Document Text

October 22, 2013

Filing 20 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 11 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Michael J. Astrue, 16 Report and Recommendations, 9 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Milton Jacobs ; granting 9 Motion for Summary Judgment; denyi ng 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 16 Report and Recommendations. This Court has carefully and independently reviewed the relevant record in this case and the objections to the Magistrate Judge 9;s Report and Recommendation. For the reasons discussed above, the Court OVERRULES Commissioner/Defendant's objections, Doc. 17, and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Doc. 16, in its entirety. The Court DENIES Com missioner/Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 11, GRANTS Plaintiff Jacobs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 9, and AFFIRMS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the final decision of the Commissioner be REMANDED for further proceedings. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr and filed on 10/18/13. Copies distributed to all parties 10/22/13.(ldab, )

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 Virginia Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Jacobs 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: Milton Jacobs
Represented By:	John Harlow Klein
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?