WELLS v. NAPOLITANO
||March 28, 2013
||Indiana Southern District Court
||Tim A. Baker
||Tanya Walton Pratt
|Nature of Suit:
||Civil Rights: Jobs
|Cause of Action:
||42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|November 21, 2013
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS - Exercising the judicial discretion afforded the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), the Secretary's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 11 ), is DENIED, and Mr. Wells is ordered to effectuate service upon the Attorney General of the United States within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Entry. Additionally, Mr. Wells' Motion for Sanctions included in his Response in Opposition to The Secretary's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 15 ), is DENIED as improper and unsubstantiated. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/21/2013. (JD)
|August 20, 2014
ENTRY ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OR ALTERNATIVELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT - denying Defendant's 29 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The Court finds that the election provision of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.302(b) does not ap ply to Mr. Wells' appeal brought before the Merit Systems Board, and thus does not preclude his EEO complaint and exhaustion of remedies for alleged discrimination through the DCR. Therefore, dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is not warranted, and the Secretary's Motion is DENIED. **SEE ENTRY** Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/20/2014. (ADH)
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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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.