Dunham v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 10

Joint Case Management Plan for Social Security Cases (ORDER) SS Plaintiffs Brief due by 3/24/2012. SS Defendants Brief due by 4/23/2012. SS Plaintiffs Reply Brief due by 5/8/2012, by Judge John L. Kane on 2/14/12. (gmssl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01974-AP

CHARLES D. DUNHAM,
Plaintiff, Pro Se,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY CASES
______________________________________________________________________________

1.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES

For Plaintiff:

For Defendant:

Charles D. Dunham

M. Thayne Warner
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Assistant Regional Counsel
Office of the General Counsel
Social Security Administration
1001 17th Street
Denver, CO 80202
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]

Plaintiff, Pro Se
12801 Lafayette St. A102
Thornton, CO 80241
[phone]

2.

STATEMENT OF LEGAL BASIS FOR SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

This is an appeal of a Social Security benefits application. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to
section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
3.

DATES OF FILING OF RELEVANT PLEADINGS
A.
B.
C.

Date Complaint Was Filed: August 1, 2011
Date Complaint was Served on U.S. Attorney’s Office: November 26, 2011
Date Answer and Administrative Record Were Filed: January 24, 2012

4.

STATEMENT REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE RECORD

The parties, to the best of their knowledge, state that the administrative record is complete and
accurate.
5.

STATEMENT REGARDING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

Plaintiff may intend to submit additional evidence.
Defendant does not intend to submit additional evidence.
6.

STATEMENT REGARDING WHETHER THIS CASE RAISES UNUSUAL
CLAIMS OR DEFENSES

The parties, to the best of their knowledge, do not believe this case raises any unusual claims or
defenses.
7.

OTHER MATTERS

The parties have no other matters to bring to the attention of the Court.
8.

BRIEFING SCHEDULE
A.
B.
C.

9.

March 24, 2012
April 23, 2012
May 8, 2012

STATEMENTS REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
A.
B.

10.

Plaintiff’s Opening Brief:
Response Brief due:
Reply Brief due:

Plaintiff’s Statement: The Plaintiff does not request oral argument.
Defendant’s Statement: The Defendant does not request oral argument.

CONSENT TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE
A.

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

B.

( )
All parties have not consented to the exercise of jurisdiction of a United
States Magistrate Judge.

2

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
ATTORNEYS 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 14th day of February, 2012
BY THE COURT:
s/John L. Kane _____________
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

APPROVED:
/s/ Charles D. Dunham

Charles D. Dunham
12801 Lafayette St. A102
Thornton, CO 80241
[phone]

JOHN F. WALSH
United States Attorney
1

WILLIAM PHARO
Chief, Civil Division
United States Attorney's Office
District of Colorado
[e-mail]

Plaintiff, Pro Se
/s/ M. Thayne Warner
M. Thayne Warner
Special Assistant United States Attorney
1001 17th Street
Denver, CO 80202
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
1

Attorney for Defendant contacted pro se Plaintiff by telephone on February 13, 2012, and secured his agreement on
each JCMP term. Pro se Plaintiff was asked, and did not object to Attorney for Defendant typing his name in the
signature field of this document to represent his agreement on the terms of the JCMP.

3