Davis v. City of Montgomery, Alabama
| Leo Davis, III |
| City of Montgomery, Alabama |
| 2:2020cv00958 |
| November 18, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
| Stephen Michael Doyle |
| Emily C Marks |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 15, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER: it is ORDERED that a new FRCP 26(f) report containing the discovery plan and utilizing one of the undersigned's trial terms shall be filed as soon as practicable, as further set out in order; Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 2/5/2021. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 1/15/2021. (amf, )
|
| Filing 11 Case Reassigned to Chief Judge Emily C. Marks as Presiding Judge and Honorable Judge Stephen Michael Doyle as Referral Judge; Honorable Judge Stephen Michael Doyle no longer assigned to the case as Presiding Judge. (amf, ) |
| Filing 10 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Mauldin, Madelyn) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER: it is ORDERED that the Rule 26(f) report containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as practicable, as further set out in order; Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 1/5/2021; any party wishing to consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction shall complete the appropriate attached form so that the form is received by the Clerk on or before 1/5/2021. Signed by Honorable Judge Stephen Michael Doyle on 12/15/2020. (amf, )
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Assignment to U.S. Magistrate Judge sent to counsel for Defendant City of Montgomery, Alabama. (amf, ) |
| Filing 7 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by City of Montgomery, Alabama. (Mauldin, Madelyn) |
| Filing 6 ANSWER to #1 Complaint by City of Montgomery, Alabama.(Mauldin, Madelyn) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed; City of Montgomery, Alabama served on 12/2/2020, answer due 12/23/2020. (amf, ) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to City of Montgomery, Alabama; Returned to counsel for personal service by process server. (amf, ) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Assignment to U.S. Magistrate Judge sent to counsel for Plaintiff Leo Davis, III. (amf, ) |
| Filing 2 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by Leo Davis, III. (amf, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against City of Montgomery, Alabama (Filing fee $ 400.00, receipt number 4602060295), filed by Leo Davis, III. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Filing Fee Receipt)(amf, ) |
| DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Leo Davis, III. (No PDF attached to this entry - See doc #1 for PDF) (amf, ) |
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 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
| Search for this case: Davis v. City of Montgomery, Alabama | |
|---|---|
| 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 Montgomery, Alabama | |
| Represented By: | Madelyn Kay Mauldin |
| 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: Leo Davis, III | |
| Represented By: | Joseph Mitchell McGuire |
| 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.
