Davis v. Shinseki

Plaintiff: Robert Davis
Defendant: Eric Shinseki
Case Number: 3:2009cv00673
Filed: July 17, 2009
Court: Alabama Middle District Court
Office: Opelika Office
County: Macon
Referring Judge: Charles S. Coody
Presiding Judge: Mark E. Fuller
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
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
February 3, 2011 26 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER; that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED, the defendant's motion for summary judgment 20 is GRANTED, judgment is GRANTED in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, and that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further ORDERED that the costs of this proceeding be and are hereby TAXED against the plaintiff. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 2/3/2011. (jg, )

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 this case: Davis v. Shinseki
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Robert Davis
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Eric Shinseki
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 [ 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?