Mitchell v. Astrue
Plaintiff: Gregory Lee Mitchell
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 2:2011cv01941
Filed: November 21, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Washington
Office: Seattle Office
County: King
Presiding Judge: James P. Donohue
Presiding Judge: Richard A Jones
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 205
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
December 7, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER by Judge Richard A Jones. The Court adopts the 21 Report and Recommendation. The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and this case is dismissed with prejudice.(CL)
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 Washington Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Mitchell v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Represented By: Kerry Jane Keefe
Represented By: Daphne Banay
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 ]
Plaintiff: Gregory Lee Mitchell
Represented By: Elie Halpern
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?