Matthews v. Waffle House et al (MAG+)
| Octavius Matthews |
| Ciara Fleminister, D Pak and Waffle House |
| 3:2019cv00347 |
| May 14, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
| Emily C Marks |
| Susan Russ Walker |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 27, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to defer service of process on the defendant until further order of the court, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 5/29/2019. (kr, )
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER REFERRING CASE, pursuant to 28 USC 636, to Magistrate Judge Honorable Susan Russ Walker for all pretrial proceedings and entry of any orders or recommendations as may be appropriate. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 5/24/2019. (kr, )
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Octavius Matthews. (Attachments: #1 Application to Proceed IFP)(kr, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Ciara Fleminister, D Pak, Waffle House, filed by Octavius Matthews. (Attachments: #1 EEOC Attachment, #2 Waffle House Complaints)(kr, ) |
| DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Octavius Matthews. (No pdf attached to this entry - See docket entry #1 ) (kr, ) |
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
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.
