Copley v. Astrue

Copley v. Astrue

Plaintiff:	Jerry D. Copley
Defendant:	Michael J. Astrue
Case Number:	2:2008cv00297
Filed:	May 8, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Office:	Social Security: DIWC/DIWW Office
County:	Jackson
Presiding Judge:	David A. Faber
Presiding Judge:	Mary E. Stanley
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By:	42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

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
July 16, 2009	Filing 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, the court REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner and REMANDS this case to the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) for furthe r proceedings; by separate Judgment Order entered of even date, the court enters judgment in favor of plaintiff; directing the Clerk to remove this matter from the court's active docket. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 7/16/2009. (cc: attys) (taq)
June 22, 2009	Filing 14 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION recommending that the presiding District Judge reverse the final decision of the Commissioner and remand this case, pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), for further proceedings to determine the dat e of onset of disability 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 7/10/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley on 6/22/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmr)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 16, 2009

Filing 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, the court REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner and REMANDS this case to the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) for furthe r proceedings; by separate Judgment Order entered of even date, the court enters judgment in favor of plaintiff; directing the Clerk to remove this matter from the court's active docket. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 7/16/2009. (cc: attys) (taq)

June 22, 2009

Filing 14 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION recommending that the presiding District Judge reverse the final decision of the Commissioner and remand this case, pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), for further proceedings to determine the dat e of onset of disability 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 7/10/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley on 6/22/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmr)

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: Copley 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: Jerry D. Copley
Represented By:	Michael G. Miskowiec
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
Represented By:	Michael McGaughran
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?