Rogers v. Shinseki

Rogers v. Shinseki

Plaintiff:	Josephine D. Rogers
Defendant:	Eric K. Shinseki
Case Number:	1:2012cv00194
Filed:	December 21, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
Office:	Augusta Office
County:	Richmond
Presiding Judge:	W. Leon Barfield
Presiding Judge:	J. Randal Hall
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
November 4, 2014	Filing 56 ORDER granting 46 Motion to Dismiss as to all remaining claims in the Amended Complaint; directing the Clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 11/04/2014. (thb)
March 18, 2014	Filing 38 ORDER granting in part 15 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's claims for associational disability discrimination under the RehabilitationAct and for racial discrimination under Title VII (based on the non-promotions in 2008) are dismissed with p rejudice. Plaintiff's claim for retaliation is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is advised that she may file an Amended Complaint in compliance with the Court's repleading instructions within twenty-one (21) days of this Order. Failur e to do so may result in dismissal of this action in its entirety. If an Amended Complaint is filed, Defendant shall have twenty-one (21) days to plead or otherwise respond. The Court's previous deadline for the parties to file motions for summary judgment (doc. no. 37) is terminated, and the Court will set a new deadline if and when necessary. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 03/18/2014. (thb)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 4, 2014

Filing 56 ORDER granting 46 Motion to Dismiss as to all remaining claims in the Amended Complaint; directing the Clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 11/04/2014. (thb)

March 18, 2014

Filing 38 ORDER granting in part 15 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's claims for associational disability discrimination under the RehabilitationAct and for racial discrimination under Title VII (based on the non-promotions in 2008) are dismissed with p rejudice. Plaintiff's claim for retaliation is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is advised that she may file an Amended Complaint in compliance with the Court's repleading instructions within twenty-one (21) days of this Order. Failur e to do so may result in dismissal of this action in its entirety. If an Amended Complaint is filed, Defendant shall have twenty-one (21) days to plead or otherwise respond. The Court's previous deadline for the parties to file motions for summary judgment (doc. no. 37) is terminated, and the Court will set a new deadline if and when necessary. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 03/18/2014. (thb)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rogers v. Shinseki
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Josephine D. Rogers
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 ]
Defendant: Eric K. 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	[ 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?