Tinsley v. City of Charlotte
Plaintiff: Michael Tinsley
Defendant: City of Charlotte
Case Number: 3:2016cv00656
Filed: September 8, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
Office: Charlotte Office
County: Mecklenburg
Presiding Judge: Graham Mullen
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
June 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 132 CLERK'S JUDGMENT is hereby entered in accordance with the Court's Order dated 6/22/2021. Signed by Clerk, Frank G. Johns. (eef)
September 17, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 120 CLERK'S JUDGMENT is hereby entered in accordance with the Court's Order dated 3/26/2019. Signed by Clerk, Frank G. Johns. (eef)
August 19, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 113 ORDER granting 96 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 108 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 08/19/2019. (brj)
July 29, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 107 ORDER denying 98 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and for a New Trial. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 07/29/2019. (brj)
April 26, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 95 ORDER before this Court to determine the appropriate equitable remedies in this case. The Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to $1,671,376.00 in equitable remedies of backpay, front pay, and federal income tax adjustment . Additionally, Defendant is required to place a copy of the Verdict Sheet in Plaintiffs personnel file. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant is to include a copy of the Verdict Sheet anytime Defendant provides information regarding Plaintiffs disciplinary history or termination. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 4/26/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Letters)(eef)
April 2, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 88 ORDER and NOTICE of Hearing determine equitable remedies. ( Hearing set for 4/10/2019 10:30 AM in Courtroom 2-2, 401 W Trade St, Charlotte, NC 28202 before Senior Judge Graham Mullen.). Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 4/1/2019. (eef)
March 8, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 78 ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 65 Motion in Limine, Denying 66 Motion in Limine, Denying 74 Motion to Bifurcate, and Terminating 75 Motion in Limine. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 3/8/2019. (jaw)
January 23, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 67 ORDER ( Jury Trial RE-SET for 3/19/2019 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2-2, 401 W Trade St, Charlotte, NC 28202 before Senior Judge Graham Mullen.) Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 1/23/2019. (jaw)
January 2, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 56 ORDER in regards to trial set on 2/11/2019, at 10;00 a.m., parties are expected to comply with the provisions of the pretrial order regarding trial preparation. Counsel are notified that failure to comply with deadlines will result in sanctions. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 01/02/2019. (brl)
November 5, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 55 ORDER denying 42 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 11/5/2018. (brl)
September 27, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 54 ORDER that due to pending Motion for Summary Judgment, the trial in this matter is RE-SET for Jury Trial set for 2/11/2019 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2-2, 401 W Trade St, Charlotte, NC 28202 before Senior Judge Graham Mullen.). Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 09/27/2018. (brl)
July 16, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 53 ORDER re 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment , Jury Trial RE-SET for 11/5/2018 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2-2, 401 W Trade St, Charlotte, NC 28202 before Senior Judge Graham Mullen. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 7/16/2018. (jaw)
June 18, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 50 ORDER granting 45 Motion to Seal Document. All of the exhibits attached to Doc 47 Sealed Document are to be filed under seal until further Order of this Court. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 06/18/2018. (brl)
December 19, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 38 ORDER re 24 Second MOTION to Produce and for Costs Incurred. Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Costs. Defendant is hereby ordered to pay $2,080.00 to Plaintiff. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 12/19/2017. (chh)
September 27, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 27 ORDER Granting Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Extend Other Deadlines 26 Motion for Discovery. Discovery extended to 12/13/2017. Mediation extended to 1/12/2018. Motions extended to 2/2/2018. Trial date Re-Set for 7/16/2018. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 9/27/2017. (jaw)
August 8, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 12 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and For Costs Incurred. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 8/8/2017. (eef)
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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Tinsley v. City of Charlotte
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: City of Charlotte
Represented By: Walter Lee Bowers, Jr.
Represented By: Mark H. Newbold
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 ]
Plaintiff: Michael Tinsley
Represented By: Geraldine Sumter
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?