Graham v. Dept of the Army

Defendant: Dept of the Army
Plaintiff: Clifford Lee Graham, Sr.
Case Number: 1:2013cv00033
Filed: February 25, 2013
Court: Georgia Southern District Court
Office: Augusta Office
County: Richmond
Referring Judge: W. Leon Barfield
Presiding Judge: J. Randal Hall
Nature of Suit: Personal Property: Other
Cause of Action: 28:1402 United States as Defendant
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
September 18, 2014 22 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting the Defendant's 15 Motion to Dismiss; and directing the Clerk to terminate all motions and to close the case. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 09/18/2014. (jah) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/18/2014: # 1 Correction to first page) (jah).

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Georgia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Graham v. Dept of the Army
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Dept of the Army
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Clifford Lee Graham, Sr.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.