Ross v. Michigan State University Board of Regents
Plaintiff: Anthony Ross
Defendant: Michigan State University Board of Regents
Case Number: 1:2010cv00216
Filed: March 3, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Michigan
Office: Southern Division (1) Office
County: Clinton
Presiding Judge: Judge Janet T. Neff
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 Job Discrimination (Race)
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
September 12, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 24 OPINION; Order and Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
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 Michigan Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Ross v. Michigan State University Board of Regents
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Michigan State University Board of Regents
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: Anthony Ross
Represented By: Joni Marie Fixel
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?