Bodana v. Cagle
Plaintiff: Anji Reddy Bodana, , DVM
Defendant: Merry Cagle
Case Number: 1:2012cv01104
Filed: March 30, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Office: Atlanta Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: William S. Duffey
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983
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
March 13, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 11 OPINION AND ORDER granting Defendant's 4 Motion to Dismiss. This action is DISMISSED. The 5 Motion to Stay is denied as moot. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 3/13/2013. (anc) Modified on 3/13/2013 in order to update docket text (anc).
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 Georgia Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bodana v. Cagle
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Merry Cagle
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: Anji Reddy Bodana, , DVM
Represented By: Nicholas G. Dumich
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?