Rogers, III v. Gold Mountain Communications et al
| Lester A Rogers, III |
| Gold Mountain Communications, Hank Seevers, Susan Davis, Lucas Bench, Ian McGuire and HealthSmart Benefits Solution |
| 6:2021cv03189 |
| July 27, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Missouri |
| Stephen R Bough |
| Lajuana M Counts |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 4, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 3
ORDER denying #1 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed on 8/4/2021 by District Judge Stephen R. Bough. (Crocker, Susan) Modified on 9/9/2021 copy mailed to plaintiff (Siegert, Karen).
|
|
Filing 2
ORDER TRANSFERRING/REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to District Judge Stephen R. Bough for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Lajuana M. Counts no longer assigned to case. Please note the new case number is 6:21-cv-03189-SRB. Signed on July 28, 2021 by Magistrate Judge Lajuana M. Counts. (Chorny, Traci)
|
| Filing 1 Pro Se MOTION for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Lester A Rogers, III. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/10/2021 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit, #2 Complaint, #3 Civil Cover Sheet, #4 EEOC Charge of Discrimination) (Furtak, Rebecca) |
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 Missouri Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
