RUTLEDGE V. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

Justia Dockets & Filings Fourth Circuit North Carolina Middle District RUTLEDGE V. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

RUTLEDGE V. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

Plaintiff:	AMELIA H RUTLEDGE
Defendant:	NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Case Number:	1:2014cv00045
Filed:	January 22, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Office:	NCMD Office
County:	XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge:	L. PATRICK AULD
Presiding Judge:	JAMES A. BEATY
Nature of Suit:	Employment
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000
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
February 25, 2015	Filing 31 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by JUDGE JAMES A. BEATY, JR on 2/25/2015, that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 27 ) is GRANTED. (Daniel, J)
August 29, 2014	Filing 26 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by JUDGE JAMES A. BEATY, JR on 8/29/2014, that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. # 10 ) is HEREBY ACCEPTED. FURTHER, that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDI CE to Defendant filing a new motion to dismiss, with respect to the allegations in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Defendant must file any responsive pleading to, or a new motion to dismiss, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint within twenty-on e (21) days of the Court's oral Order stated at the Motion hearing on August 21, 2014. Finally, the Court notes for the record that Plaintiff's failure to promote and §§ 1981 and 1983 claims are deemed abandoned, as Plaintiff's Amended Complaint no longer asserts those claims. (Daniel, J)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 25, 2015

Filing 31 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by JUDGE JAMES A. BEATY, JR on 2/25/2015, that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 27 ) is GRANTED. (Daniel, J)

August 29, 2014

Filing 26 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by JUDGE JAMES A. BEATY, JR on 8/29/2014, that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. # 10 ) is HEREBY ACCEPTED. FURTHER, that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDI CE to Defendant filing a new motion to dismiss, with respect to the allegations in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Defendant must file any responsive pleading to, or a new motion to dismiss, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint within twenty-on e (21) days of the Court's oral Order stated at the Motion hearing on August 21, 2014. Finally, the Court notes for the record that Plaintiff's failure to promote and §§ 1981 and 1983 claims are deemed abandoned, as Plaintiff's Amended Complaint no longer asserts those claims. (Daniel, J)

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 Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: RUTLEDGE V. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: AMELIA H RUTLEDGE
Represented By:	CARLOS D. WATSON
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: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Represented By:	PEGGY S. VINCENT
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?