Cobb v. State of Alabama, Department of Human Resources et al
| Janie D. Cobb |
| State of Alabama, Department of Human Resources, Nancy Buckner, Craig Nelson, Thomas King, Vera Warren and Charles Johnson |
| 2:2009cv00226 |
| March 18, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
| Civil Rights: Jobs Office |
| Montgomery |
| Susan Russ Walker |
| Mark E. Fuller |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
35
ORDERED that 33 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED;(2) Defendants' 28 Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, for More Definite Statement is DENIED insofar as it seeks dismissal of the complaint but GRANTED as to the request for a more definite statement; and (3) Plaintiff's 31 Motion to Amend Her Amended Complaint is GRANTED and plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, attached to the Motion to Amend, should be docketed as plaintiff's third amended complaint and defendants shall file their answer or other pleading in response to the third amended complaint as directed by the FRCP. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 1/7/2009. (cb, )
|
|
Filing
29
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that 14 Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of a Deceased Party is DENIED as further set out in order. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 141/23/2009. (cb, )
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER that 18 Objection to the Recommendation for the Magistrate Judge is OVERRULED; (2) The 17 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED in part and REJECTED in part as set out; (3) Defendant's 5 Motion to Dimiss, or int he Alternat ive, for More Definite Statement is DENIED insofar as it seeks dismissal of the complaint prior to amendment but GRANTED as to the Request for a more definite statement; (4) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is GRANTED; (5) Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is GRANTED; (6) Plaintiff is DIRECTED to show cause why 14 Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Deceased Party should not be GRANTED on or before October 30, 2009; and (7) Defend ants' 9 Second Motion to Dismiss, 13 as supplemented, is DENIED to the extent that it seeks dismissal of this matter for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, but GRANTED to the extent that it seeks an Order requiring Plaintiff to make a more definite statement. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 10/7/2009. (cb, ) Modified on 10/8/2009 to create a link to the second supplemental motion (cb, ).
|
|
Filing
17
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the undersigned Magistrate Judge that Defendants' 9 Second Motion for Dismiss, and 13 Motion to Dismiss, as supplemented be GRANTED and this matter DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Magistrate Judge further RECOMMENDS as follows:(1) The 5 Motion to Dismiss, or IN the Alternative, for More Definite Statement is DENIED as it seeks dismissal of the complaint prior to amendment but GRANTED as to the request for a mo re definite statement; (2) Plaintiff's 7 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint be GRANTED; (3) Plaintiff's 11 Motion to Amend Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is DENIED as moot; (4) Defendants' 14 Motion to Dismiss on behalf of Deceased Party be DENIED as moot. Objections to R&R due by 9/14/2009. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 9/1/2009. (cb, ) Modified on 9/17/2009 (cb, ).
|
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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
