Cases 21 - 30 of 167
KENDRICK v. ASTRUE
as 1:2012cv01109
Defendant:
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Plaintiff:
MONIQUE D. KENDRICK
Miscellaneou:
SSA (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
DAVIS v. ASTRUE
as 1:2012cv01101
Defendant:
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Plaintiff:
ROBERT E. DAVIS
Miscellaneou:
SSA (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
LITTLE v. ASTRUE
as 1:2012cv01080
Defendant:
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY P. LITTLE
Miscellaneou:
SSA (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
WARE v. ASTRUE
as 1:2012cv01081
Defendant:
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Miscellaneou:
SSA (Court Use Only)
Plaintiff:
TIMOTHY L. WARE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
MILLER v. ASTRUE
as 1:2012cv01075
Defendant:
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Plaintiff:
KEVIN MILLER
Miscellaneou:
SSA (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
MILLER v. ASTRUE
as 1:2012cv01027
Defendant:
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY MILLER
Miscellaneou:
SSA (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
HADDON v. ASTRUE
as 2:2012cv00203
Defendant:
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Plaintiff:
REBECCA A. HADDON
Miscellaneou:
SSA (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
NEWMAN v. ASTRUE
as 3:2012cv00094
Defendant:
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Plaintiff:
WENDEE R NEWMAN and SSA (Court Use Only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1383 Review of HHS Decision
THOMPSON v. ASTRUE
as 1:2012cv00943
Defendant:
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Miscellaneou:
SSA (Court Use Only)
Plaintiff:
NEVELLAND THOMPSON
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 402 Social Security Benefits
WHITTEMORE v. ASTRUE
as 1:2012cv00926
Defendant:
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Miscellaneou:
SSA (Court Use Only)
Plaintiff:
RICHARD WHITTEMORE
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
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.
