Prines v. Colvin, 2:16-cv-01457-JCM-PAL (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20161026f51
Visitors: 29
Filed: Oct. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 24, 2016
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR REVIEW OF FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Matt G. Prines (Plaintiff) and Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner), stipulate, with the approval of this Court, to an extension of time for the Commissioner to answer Plaintiff's Complaint For Review Of Final Decision Of The Commissioner by thirty days from O
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR REVIEW OF FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Matt G. Prines (Plaintiff) and Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner), stipulate, with the approval of this Court, to an extension of time for the Commissioner to answer Plaintiff's Complaint For Review Of Final Decision Of The Commissioner by thirty days from Oc..
More
JOINT STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR REVIEW OF FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
PEGGY A. LEEN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Matt G. Prines (Plaintiff) and Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (the Commissioner), stipulate, with the approval of this Court, to an extension of time for the Commissioner to answer Plaintiff's Complaint For Review Of Final Decision Of The Commissioner by thirty days from October 17, 2016 to November 16, 2016, with all other dates extended accordingly. This is the Commissioner's first request for an extension.
There is good cause because the Certified Administrative Record (CAR) has not been produced. The component of the Social Security Administration responsible for production of the CAR, the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) continues to work through a substantial caseload, and has not yet provided the CAR in the above-captioned case. Counsel for the Commissioner has contacted ODAR and is working to produce the CAR. Plaintiff has no objection.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
