Buckner v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Plaintiff: Christopher Eugene Buckner
Defendant: United Parcel Service, Inc.
Case Number: 5:2009cv00411
Filed: September 14, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
Office: Western Division Office
County: WAKE
Presiding Judge: W. Earl Britt
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
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
January 18, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 102 ORDER granting in part 90 Motion for Bill of Costs. Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 1/18/2013. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail at address on record. (Marsh, K)
November 27, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 98 ORDER denying as moot 91 Motion to Stay. Signed by Senior Judge W. Earl Britt on 11/27/2012. Order to pro se plaintiff via US Mail at address on record. (Marsh, K)
May 7, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 89 JUDGMENT in favor of United Parcel Service, Inc. Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 5/7/2012. (Marsh, K)
April 4, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 87 ORDER denying 73 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Daniel on 4/4/2012. (Marsh, K)
March 14, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 83 ORDER granting 80 Motion to Correct E-Filing Error. Signed by Senior Judge W. Earl Britt on 3/14/2012. (Marsh, K)
February 23, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 69 ORDER denying 66 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Daniel on 2/23/2012. (Marsh, K)
December 22, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 65 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 55 Motion to Compel; granting 59 Motion to Compel and granting 64 Motion to Continue. Counsel should read its entirety for critical deadlines and information. Signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Daniel on 12/22/2011. (Marsh, K)
March 24, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 47 ORDER denying 40 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge W. Earl Britt on 3/24/11. Copy to pro se plaintiff via US Mail. (Cress, L.)
January 27, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 36 ORDER denying as moot 29 Motion to Amend Complaint and granting 31 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's LMRA claim. Plaintiffs overtime claim under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207, remains. The stay of discovery granted by the courts 21 July 2010 order is hereby LIFTED, and the parties are directed to submit a proposed discovery plan within 21 days of the date of this order. Signed by Judge W. Earl Britt on 1/27/11. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff. (Cress, L.)
July 21, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 8 Motion to Dismiss; denying 14 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 16 Motion to Amend/Correct; and granting 27 Motion to Stay Discovery. Signed by Judge W. Earl Britt on 7/21/10. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff. (Cress, L.)
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 North Carolina Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Buckner v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Christopher Eugene Buckner
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: United Parcel Service, Inc.
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?