HIGGINS v. COLVIN, CV 114-099. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20141203a10
Visitors: 27
Filed: Dec. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 02, 2014
Summary: ORDER BRIAN K. EPPS, Magistrate Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff titled "motion for seponea [sic]" in which Plaintiff lists the addresses of different doctors and his former lawyer at the administrative level. (Doc. no. 22.) Under a standing order in the Southern District, pro se litigants must explain, ex parte, in writing to the Court the necessity of the subpoena. In re Subpoenas , MC 496-006, doc. no. 1 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 16, 1996). Plaintiff's motion does
Summary: ORDER BRIAN K. EPPS, Magistrate Judge. Presently before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff titled "motion for seponea [sic]" in which Plaintiff lists the addresses of different doctors and his former lawyer at the administrative level. (Doc. no. 22.) Under a standing order in the Southern District, pro se litigants must explain, ex parte, in writing to the Court the necessity of the subpoena. In re Subpoenas , MC 496-006, doc. no. 1 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 16, 1996). Plaintiff's motion does n..
More
ORDER
BRIAN K. EPPS, Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff titled "motion for seponea [sic]" in which Plaintiff lists the addresses of different doctors and his former lawyer at the administrative level. (Doc. no. 22.) Under a standing order in the Southern District, pro se litigants must explain, ex parte, in writing to the Court the necessity of the subpoena. In re Subpoenas, MC 496-006, doc. no. 1 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 16, 1996). Plaintiff's motion does not explain the necessity for the subpoenas but rather simply lists addresses. Furthermore, review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security is usually solely based upon the transcript of the record and the pleadings. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(g). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's "motion for seponea [sic]." (Doc. no. 22.)
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
