Crow v. Saul
| Kristal Nicole Crow |
| Andrew M Saul |
| SSA (Social Security Administration) |
| 3:2020cv00776 |
| October 3, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| David J Novak |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 416 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 18, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
ORDER (Regarding Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction) Should both parties consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction consistent with the Courts Standing Orders for Social Security appeals,the Court hereby DIRECTS the Clerk to reassign this case to United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes for all purposes. All parties have been notified as directed.(asho, )
|
| Filing 14 SUMMONS Returned Executed on 10/7/2020 as to U.S. Attorney General. (asho, ) |
|
Filing 13
STANDING ORDER Effective immediately, if all parties in a Social Security Appeal consent to have the matter heard by a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c), the matter shall be reassigned to United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes for all purposes. If the parties do not consent to have the matter heard by a United States Magistrate Judge, the case shall be referred to Judge Hanes for Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). it is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge David J. Novak on 6/19/2020. (asho, )
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER STANDING ORDER IN SOCIAL SECURITY CASES (see Standing Order for additional information.) It is so ORDERED.Signed by District Judge David J. Novak on 7/20/2018. (asho, )
|
|
Filing 11
REVISED STANDING ORDER IN SOCIAL SECURITY CASES (see Revised Standing Order for additional information.) It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge David J. Novak on 10/17/2013. (asho, )
|
| Filing 10 SUMMONS Returned Executed Andrew M Saul and U.S. Attorney served on 10/7/2020. (asho, ) |
| Filing 9 Certificate Reporting Service by Andrew M Saul. Andrew M Saul served on 10/8/2020, answer due 12/7/2020. (Hambrick, Jonathan) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan Holland Hambrick on behalf of Andrew M Saul (Hambrick, Jonathan) |
| Filing 7 Summons Issued as to Andrew M Saul, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General and sent to USM for service. (Attachments: #1 USM Form 1, #2 USM Form 2, #3 USM Form 3)(tjoh, ) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER - Upon due consideration, Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a) on October 5, 2020, is GRANTED. Plaintiff may proceed in this case without paying the Courts filing fee. The Clerk is DIRECTED to issue process and deliver the summons to the United States Marshal for service. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes on 10/06/2020. (tjoh, )
|
| Filing 5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Kristal Nicole Crow. (asho, ) |
| Initial Case Assignment to District Judge David J. Novak. (asho, ) |
| Filing 4 Proposed Summons re #1 Complaint to U.S. Attorney by Kristal Nicole Crow. (McKeen, Jean) |
| Filing 3 Proposed Summons re #1 Complaint to Office of Regional Chief Counsel by Kristal Nicole Crow. (McKeen, Jean) |
| Filing 2 Proposed Summons re #1 Complaint by Kristal Nicole Crow. (McKeen, Jean) |
| Filing 1 Complaint , filed by Kristal Nicole Crow. (Attachments: #1 Letter, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(McKeen, Jean) (Main Document 1 replaced on 10/5/2020) (asho, ). |
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 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.
