Clyburn v. Insulite Glass Company et al

Justia Dockets & Filings Eighth Circuit Missouri Eastern District Clyburn v. Insulite Glass Company et al

Clyburn v. Insulite Glass Company et al

Plaintiff:	Christopher Clyburn
Defendant:	Insulite Glass Company
Case Number:	4:2014cv01727
Filed:	October 9, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office:	St. Louis Office
County:	St. Louis - City
Presiding Judge:	Catherine D. Perry
Nature of Suit:	Employment
Cause of Action:	29 U.S.C. § 623
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

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
May 12, 2015	Filing 26 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Insulite Glass Company's motion for sanctions [# 25] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Insulite Glass Company's motion to compel [# 23] is denied as moot. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this case will be dismissed with prejudice in a separate Order of Dismissal issued this same date. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on May 12, 2015. (MCB)
October 14, 2014	Filing 5 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Tim Shoetanbergh and Shannon Unknown are DISMISSED from this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 3] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to issue as to defendant Insulite Glass Company. An Order of Partial Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on October 14, 2014. (MCB)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 12, 2015

Filing 26 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Insulite Glass Company's motion for sanctions [# 25] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Insulite Glass Company's motion to compel [# 23] is denied as moot. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this case will be dismissed with prejudice in a separate Order of Dismissal issued this same date. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on May 12, 2015. (MCB)

October 14, 2014

Filing 5 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Tim Shoetanbergh and Shannon Unknown are DISMISSED from this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 3] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to issue as to defendant Insulite Glass Company. An Order of Partial Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on October 14, 2014. (MCB)

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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Clyburn v. Insulite Glass Company et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Christopher Clyburn
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: Insulite Glass Company
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?