Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG, District Judge. Plaintiff Juan A. Scott brings this pro se action seeking reversal of the decision made by the Commissioner of Social Security that he is not disabled under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383, and therefore not entitled to supplemental security income (SSI

\\\\ Htt UC}' 3 mm Cierk 115 D|-_tn. ’ ‘ ~ 3 Ct and B”"*<fvptcv courts UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Juan A. Scott, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. .iL’ l}`§)`i Commissioner of Social Security, &/\J\é\y\y\/&_/\/\) Defendant. l\/IEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperz's. Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, sues the "Office of Disabi

899 F.Supp. 275 (1995) Charles K. SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 2:95-0078. United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division. September 27, 1995. *276 Montie VanNostrand, Webster Springs, WV, for plaintiff. Carol Casto, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Charleston,

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wanda Scott appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reaso

PER CURIAM: Thomas Scott Henry appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Social Security Administration’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. On appeal, Henry argues that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by (1) refusing to give pr

SUMMARY ORDER Ronald J. Pryor, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Brodie, J.) in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security. Pryor seeks review of the Commissioner’s determination that Pryor made $15,922.54 in unreported earnings in 2008. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of the prior proceedings,- to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Jane M. Virden, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This cause is before the Court on Plaintiffs complaint for judicial review of an unfavorable final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the pro

MEMORANDUM CURTIS L. COLLIER, District Judge. Plaintiff Robert Hatmaker (“Plaintiff’) brought this action on May 2, 2012, seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”) denying Plaintiff a period of disability, disability insurance benefits (“DIB”), and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Ac

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. # 24) IN ITS ENTIRETY; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS (DOC. #20); AWARDING PLAINTIFF THE SUM OF $4,355.00 IN ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT; AND TERMINATION ENTRY WALTER HERBERT RICE, District Judge. The Court has reviewed the January 29, 2013 Report and Recommen

OPINION AND ORDER CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs Objection (ECF DKT # 18) to the Report and Recommendation (ECF DKT # 16) of Magistrate Judge Limbert who recommended that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiffs Claim for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Limber

AMENDED ORDER FEUERSTEIN, District Judge. Richard Henningsen (“plaintiff’ or “claimant” or “Henningsen”) commenced this action pursuant, to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the final determination of defendant Commissioner of Social Security Administration (“Commissioner” or “defendant”) denying his November 29, 2010 application for disability benefits. Now before the Court is defenda

672 F.Supp.2d 794 (2009) Scott L. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. Case No. 08-12992. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. October 13, 2009. Lewis M. Seward, Seward, Tally, Bay City, MI, for Plaintiff. Derri T. Thomas, U.S. Attorney's Office, Detroit, MI, for Defendant. OPINION AND

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. The Plaintiff Karen Anne Miller (“Miller” or the “Plaintiff’) seeks review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) that she was not disabled during the relevant time periods and, therefore, she was not entitled to disability benefits on her own earnings record or disabled widows’ benefits as provided for in T

566 F.3d 347 (2009) Marguerite P. KELLEY, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY. No. 08-1652. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued January 8, 2009. Opinion Filed: May 15, 2009. Scott A. Dye, (Argued), Cohen, Fluhr & Gonzalez, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant. Eric P. Kressman, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Patrici

MEMORANDUM * Carol Wilson (Wilson) appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Wilson’s application for disability insurance benefits under the Title II of the Social Security Act. We review a district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits de novo. Schneider v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 223 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Ci

MEMORANDUM * Carol Wilson (Wilson) appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Wilson’s application for disability insurance benefits under the Title II of the Social Security Act. We review a district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits de novo. Schneider v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 223 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Ci

*664MEMORANDUM *** The facts and procedural posture of the case are known to the parties, and we do not repeat them here. Claimant Scott Brodie appeals from the magistrate judge’s affirmance of the ALJ’s denial of disability insurance benefits (“SSI benefits”) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Darius Scott, a minor, appeals the order of the district court 1 upholding the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of his application for supplemental security income (“SSI”) childhood benefits. More precisely, Darius submits that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) who denied the app

268 F.Supp.2d 954 (2003) Janice L. WINES, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. No. 5:01 CV 423. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. June 24, 2003. *955 Dianne R. Newman, Sternberg, Newman & Shifrin, Scott F. Smith, Akron, OH, for Plaintiff. Michael A. Johnson, Office of the U

188 F.Supp.2d 424 (2002) Theresa STIEBERGER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. No. 84 CIV. 1302(LBS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 7, 2002. *425 The Legal Aid Society, Scott A. Rosenberg, Esq., New York City, for Stieberger plaintiffs. U.S. Department of Justice, Civil