Simelton v. Pilot Flying J

Simelton v. Pilot Flying J

Plaintiff:	Gary Simelton
Defendant:	Pilot Flying J
Case Number:	2:2015cv00033
Filed:	January 28, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
Office:	Hammond Office
County:	Lake
Presiding Judge:	Paul R Cherry
Presiding Judge:	Theresa L Springmann
Nature of Suit:	Employment
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
March 29, 2018	Filing 72 OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Title VII and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims 68 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's battery and Equal Pay Act claims were previously dismissed as a m atter of law 33 . Because no claims remain in this case, the court directs the Clerk to ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT stating: Judgment is entered in favor of defendant Pilot Flying J, and against plaintiff Gary Simelton, who shall take nothing by way of his complaint. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 3/29/2018. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(jss)
December 19, 2016	Filing 46 OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DENIES without prejudice and with leave to refile the letter 43 and GRANTS Plaintiff up to and including 1/20/2017, for Plaintiff to file a Motion for Appointment of Counsel consistent with this Opinion and Order. The Court ORDERS that briefing on the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and 41 44 is hereby STAYED pending resolution of Plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 12/19/2016. (lhc)(cc: Plaintiff)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 29, 2018

Filing 72 OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Title VII and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims 68 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's battery and Equal Pay Act claims were previously dismissed as a m atter of law 33 . Because no claims remain in this case, the court directs the Clerk to ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT stating: Judgment is entered in favor of defendant Pilot Flying J, and against plaintiff Gary Simelton, who shall take nothing by way of his complaint. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 3/29/2018. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(jss)

December 19, 2016

Filing 46 OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DENIES without prejudice and with leave to refile the letter 43 and GRANTS Plaintiff up to and including 1/20/2017, for Plaintiff to file a Motion for Appointment of Counsel consistent with this Opinion and Order. The Court ORDERS that briefing on the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and 41 44 is hereby STAYED pending resolution of Plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 12/19/2016. (lhc)(cc: Plaintiff)

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 Indiana Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Simelton v. Pilot Flying J
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Gary Simelton
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Pilot Flying J
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| 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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?