From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hayes v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
May 23, 2012
Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00198-AP (D. Colo. May. 23, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00198-AP

05-23-2012

THOMAS HAYES, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

For Plaintiff : Nicholas D. Purifoy 5020 Bob Billings Pkwy Lawrence, KS 66049 Attorney for Plaintiff For Defendant: JOHN F. WALSH United States Attorney WILLIAM G. PHARO Assistant United States Attorney District of Colorado STEPHANIE LYNN F. KILEY 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:

Nicholas D. Purifoy

5020 Bob Billings Pkwy

Lawrence, KS 66049

Attorney for Plaintiff

For Defendant:

JOHN F. WALSH

United States Attorney

WILLIAM G. PHARO

Assistant United States Attorney

District of Colorado

STEPHANIE LYNN F. KILEY

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: January 25, 2012

B. Date Complaint Was Served on U.S. Attorney's Office: March 5, 2012

C. Date Answer and Administrative Record Were Filed: May 4, 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.

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

Counsel for both parties agree to the following proposed briefing schedule:

A. Plaintiffs Opening Brief Due: July 3, 2012

B. Defendant's Response Brief Due: August 2, 2012

C. Plaintiffs Reply Brief (If Any) Due: August 17, 2012

9. STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

The parties do not request oral argument.

10. CONSENT TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE

All parties consent 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:

__________________

Nicholas D. Purifoy

5020 Bob Billings Pkwy

Attorney for Plaintiff

JOHN F. WALSH

United States Attorney

WILLIAM G. PHARO

Assistant United States Attorney

District of Colorado

By: __________________

Stephanie Lynn F. Kiley

Special Assistant United States

Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant.


Summaries of

Hayes v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
May 23, 2012
Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00198-AP (D. Colo. May. 23, 2012)
Case details for

Hayes v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS HAYES, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: May 23, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00198-AP (D. Colo. May. 23, 2012)