Porter v. Social Security Administration et al
Filing
36
ORDER that the Clerk's Office shall make Plaintiff's filing, Docket No. 24 , accessible to the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall then state whether it objects to the Court's consideration of this newly submitted evidence no later than July 29, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 7/18/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
GAIL E. PORTER,
7
Plaintiff(s),
8
vs.
9
10
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security,
11
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:15-cv-00661-JCM-NJK
ORDER
12
This case involves judicial review of administrative action by the Commissioner of Social
13
Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits. Pending
14
before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reversal and/or remand. Docket No. 33. The Commissioner
15
filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 35. The Commissioner also filed a cross-motion to affirm.
16
Docket No. 34.
17
On December 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed new medical evidence, which was subsequently sealed,
18
pursuant to the Local Rules, as it contained personal identifiers. Docket No. 24. Plaintiff’s filing
19
contains no proof of service. See id. There is no indication that the Commissioner is aware of this
20
evidence. See, e.g., Docket No. 34 at 2 (omitting mention of new evidence in case’s procedural history).
21
Accordingly, the Clerk’s Office shall make Plaintiff’s filing, Docket No. 24, accessible to the
22
Commissioner. The Commissioner shall then state whether it objects to the Court’s consideration of
23
this newly submitted evidence no later than July 29, 2016.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
DATED: July 18, 2016
26
27
28
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?