Boggs v. Astrue

Boggs v. Astrue

Plaintiff:	Wilbert R. Boggs
Defendant:	Michael J. Astrue
Case Number:	2:2008cv00100
Filed:	February 19, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Office:	Charleston Office
County:	Kanawha
Presiding Judge:
Presiding Judge:	Joseph R. Goodwin
Presiding Judge:	Mary E. Stanley
Nature of Suit:	Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
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
March 24, 2009	Filing 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER adopting the Magistrate Judge's 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation insofar as it is consistent with my holding that the evidence must be reevaluated upon remand; reversing the final decision of the Commissioner and remanding this case for a new determination as to whether the plaintiff meets the standard found in Listing 12.05C and any other determinations required thereafter; directing this matter DISMISSED from the court's docket. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 3/24/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)
February 26, 2009	Filing 13 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Stanley (recommending that the presiding Chief District Judge REVERSE the final decision of the Commissioner, REMAND this case for determination of the date of onset of disability and the compu tation of past due benefits, and DISMISS this matter from the court's docket); This case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley; Objections to Proposed F&R due by 3/13/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley on 2/26/2009. (cc: attys, Judge Goodwin) (mkw)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 24, 2009

Filing 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER adopting the Magistrate Judge's 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation insofar as it is consistent with my holding that the evidence must be reevaluated upon remand; reversing the final decision of the Commissioner and remanding this case for a new determination as to whether the plaintiff meets the standard found in Listing 12.05C and any other determinations required thereafter; directing this matter DISMISSED from the court's docket. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 3/24/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)

February 26, 2009

Filing 13 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Stanley (recommending that the presiding Chief District Judge REVERSE the final decision of the Commissioner, REMAND this case for determination of the date of onset of disability and the compu tation of past due benefits, and DISMISS this matter from the court's docket); This case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley; Objections to Proposed F&R due by 3/13/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley on 2/26/2009. (cc: attys, Judge Goodwin) (mkw)

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 West Virginia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Boggs 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: Wilbert R. Boggs
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?