Chandler v. Armark Food Service-Corrections et al
Plaintiff: Buster Chandler
Defendant: Armark Food Service-Corrections
Case Number: 3:2009cv00801
Filed: June 10, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
Office: Louisville Office
County: Jefferson
Presiding Judge: John G. Heyburn
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
December 17, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 22 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 12/15/2010; 18 Motion to Dismiss GRANTED; plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. cc:counsel, pro se plaintiff (TLB)
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 Kentucky Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Chandler v. Armark Food Service-Corrections et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Buster Chandler
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: Armark Food Service-Corrections
Represented By: Bruce B. Paul
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?