From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tampow v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Feb 13, 2013
Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-02979-AP (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-02979-AP

02-13-2013

ROBERT R. TAMPOW, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Christopher R. Alger McDivitt Law Firm UNITED STATES ATTORNEY: By: Jessica Milano Special Assistant United States Attorney Assistant Regional Counsel Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration


JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN

1. APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES

For Plaintiff:

Christopher R. Alger

McDivitt Law Firm

1401 17th Street, Suite 300

Denver, CO 80202

Telephone: (303) 426-4878

calger@mcdivittlaw.com
For Defendant:

Jessica Milano

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Assistant Regional Counsel

Office of the General Counsel

Social Security Administration

1001 Seventeenth Street

Denver, CO 80202

Telephone: (303) 844-7136

jessica.milano@ssa.gov

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 13, 2012

B. Date Complaint Was Served on U.S. Attorney's Office: November 19, 2012

C. Date Answer and Administrative Record Were Filed: January 17, 2013

4. STATEMENT REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE RECORD

The record is complete and accurate. The parties reserve the right to correct the record in the event it proves to be incomplete.

5. STATEMENT REGARDING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

The parties do not anticipate the need for additional evidence.

6. STATEMENT REGARDING WHETHER THIS CASE RAISES UNUSUAL CLAIMS OR DEFENSESOTHER MATTERS

This case raises no unusual claims or defenses. 7. BRIEFING SCHEDULE

A. Plaintiffs Opening Brief Due: March 6, 2013

B. Defendant's Response Brief Due: April 5, 2013

C. Plaintiffs Reply Brief Due: April 22, 2013

8. STATEMENTS REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

The parties do not request oral argument.

9. CONSENT TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

10. AMENDMENTS TO JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN

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. 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
APPROVED: ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF: ______________________
Christopher R. Alger
McDivitt Law Firm
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY: ______________________
By: Jessica Milano
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Assistant Regional Counsel
Office of the General Counsel
Social Security Administration


Summaries of

Tampow v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Feb 13, 2013
Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-02979-AP (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2013)
Case details for

Tampow v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT R. TAMPOW, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Feb 13, 2013

Citations

Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-02979-AP (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2013)