Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ROGMAN v. COLVIN, 4:14CV3101. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Nebraska Number: infdco20150109811 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RICHARD G. KOPF, Senior District Judge. This matter is before me on Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Reopen Case. (Filing 11. ) On December 10, 2014, I granted Defendant's Motion to Remand because Defendant could not locate the claims file supporting the Administrative Law Judge's June 15, 2013, decision in Plaintiff's case, or the recording of the administrative hearing held on May 29, 2012. (Filings 9 and 10. ) In doing so, I informed the parties that this court did n
More

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RICHARD G. KOPF, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before me on Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Reopen Case. (Filing 11.) On December 10, 2014, I granted Defendant's Motion to Remand because Defendant could not locate the claims file supporting the Administrative Law Judge's June 15, 2013, decision in Plaintiff's case, or the recording of the administrative hearing held on May 29, 2012. (Filings 9 and 10.) In doing so, I informed the parties that this court did not affirm, reverse, or modify the Commissioner's decision and retains jurisdiction of this action during the administrative proceedings. (Filing 10.)

In her Motion to Reopen, Defendant informs me that she has located the claim file and a copy of the administrative record. (Filing 11.) Defendant asks me to reopen this case and allow her 21 days to file an answer. (Id.) Defendant's Motion is unopposed. (Id.) Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's Motion to Reopen (filing 11) is granted. 2. Defendant shall have 21 days from the date of this Memorandum and Order to file an answer.

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer