From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martinez v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Apr 9, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02869-AP (D. Colo. Apr. 9, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02869-AP

04-09-2012

ROGER MANUEL MARTINEZ Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

For Plaintiff : Michael W. Seckar For Defendant: JOHN F. WALSH United States Attorney WILLIAM G. PHARO Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office District of Colorado THAYNE WARNER Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration


JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY CASES

1. APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES

For Plaintiff:

Michael W. Seckar

For Defendant:

JOHN F. WALSH

United States Attorney

WILLIAM G. PHARO

Assistant United States Attorney

United States Attorney's Office

District of Colorado

THAYNE WARNER

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Office of the General Counsel

Social Security Administration

2. STATEMENT OF LEGAL BASIS FOR SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The Court has jurisdiction based on section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

3. DATES OF FILING OF RELEVANT PLEADINGS

A. Date Complaint Was Filed: November 4, 2011
B. Date Complaint Was Served on U.S. Attorney's Office: January 19, 2012
C. Date Answer and Administrative Record Were Filed: March 19, 2012

4. STATEMENT REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE RECORD

The parties, to the best of their knowledge, state that the administrative record is complete and accurate. However, the Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement the record if necessary at the time of the Opening Brief.

5. STATEMENT REGARDING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

The parties do not anticipate submitting additional evidence.

6. STATEMENT REGARDING WHETHER THIS CASE RAISES UNUSUAL CLAIMS OR DEFENSES

The parties, to the best of their knowledge, do not believe this case raises unusual claims or defenses.

7. OTHER MATTERS

There are no other matters anticipated.

8. BRIEFING SCHEDULE

A. Plaintiff's Opening Brief Due: May 18, 2012
B. Defendant's Response Brief Due: June 18, 2012
C. Plaintiff's Reply Brief (If Any) Due: July 3, 2012

9. STATEMENTS REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

A. Plaintiff's Statement: Plaintiff does not request oral argument.
B. Defendant's Statement: Defendant does not request oral argument.

10. CONSENT TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE

All parties have not consented to the exercise of jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge.

11. OTHER MATTERS

THE PARTIES FILING MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME OR CONTINUANCES MUST COMPLY WITH D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(C) BY SUBMITTING PROOF THAT A COPY OF THE MOTION HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE MOVING ATTORNEY'S CLIENT, ALL ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, AND ALL PRO SE PARTIES.

12. AMENDMENTS TO JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The parties agree that the Joint Case Management Plan may be altered or amended only upon a showing of good cause.

BY THE COURT:

John L. Kane

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

APPROVED:

Michael W. Seckar

Attorney for Plaintiff

JOHN F. WALSH

United States Attorney

WILLIAM G. PHARO

Assistant United States Attorney

United States Attorney's Office

District of Colorado

By: ____________

M. Thayne Warner

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant


Summaries of

Martinez v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Apr 9, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02869-AP (D. Colo. Apr. 9, 2012)
Case details for

Martinez v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:ROGER MANUEL MARTINEZ Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Apr 9, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02869-AP (D. Colo. Apr. 9, 2012)