From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Putnam v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jul 5, 2012
Civil Action No.: 12-cv-01025-JLK (D. Colo. Jul. 5, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No.: 12-cv-01025-JLK

07-05-2012

KATHRYN A. PUTNAM, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

For Plaintiff: ANN J. ATKINSON Attorney at Law For Defendant: JOHN F. WALSH, United States Attorney District of Colorado WILLIAM PHARO, Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office District of Colorado Robert L. Van Saghi Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel


JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY CASES

1. APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES:

For Plaintiff:

ANN J. ATKINSON

Attorney at Law

For Defendant:

JOHN F. WALSH,

United States Attorney

District of Colorado

WILLIAM PHARO,

Assistant United States

Attorney

United States Attorney's Office

District of Colorado

Robert L. Van Saghi

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

Social Security Administration

Office of the General Counsel

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: April 17, 2012

B. Date Complaint was served on U.S. Attorney's office: April 23, 2012.

C. Date Answer and Administrative Record were filed: June 15, 2012.

4. STATEMENT REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE RECORD:

The Administrative Record appears to be complete.

5. STATEMENT REGARDING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

The parties do not anticipate submitting additional evidence.

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

There are no unusual claims or defenses in this case.

7. OTHER MATTERS

There are no other matters to bring to the Court's attention.

8. PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE

A. Plaintiff's Opening Brief Due: August 8, 2012

B. Defendant's Response Brief Due: September 10, 2012

C. Plaintiff's Reply Brief (If Any) Due: September 21, 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

A. () All parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge.

B. (X) 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 ATTORNEY'S 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.

DATED this 5th day of July, 2012.

John L. Kane

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

APPROVED:

____________________

Ann J. Atkinson, Attorney at Law

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

____________________

By: Robert L. Van Saghi, Esq.

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney


Summaries of

Putnam v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jul 5, 2012
Civil Action No.: 12-cv-01025-JLK (D. Colo. Jul. 5, 2012)
Case details for

Putnam v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:KATHRYN A. PUTNAM, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Jul 5, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No.: 12-cv-01025-JLK (D. Colo. Jul. 5, 2012)