Johnson v. Springhill Suite Syracuse Carrier Circle et al
| Robert W. Johnson |
| Springhill Suite Syracuse Carrier Circle and Indeed |
| 5:2022cv00527 |
| May 19, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Andrew T Baxter |
| David N Hurd |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 Job Discrimination (Public Accommodations) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 11, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 JUDGMENT: It is Ordered and Adjudged: that the Report & Recommendation is Accepted in each of the twenty-one civil actions; that the twenty-one civil actions are Dismissed without leave to amend; and that the Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel are Denied as Moot. All pursuant to the Dkt. No. #8 Order on the Report & Recommendation of the Honorable U.S. District Court Judge David N. Hurd, dated 7/11/2022. (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular and certified mail on 7/11/2022.) (hmr) |
Filing 8
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION: that the Report & Recommendation is Accepted in each of the twenty-one above-captioned civil actions; that the twenty-one above-captioned civil actions are Dismissed without leave to amend; and that the Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel are Denied as Moot. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 07/11/2022. (Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular and certified mail on 7/11/2022.)(hmr)
|
| Filing 7 OBJECTION to the #6 Report and Recommendations by Robert W. Johnson, Pro Se. {Clerk notes that the pro se mentions a Judicial Complaint in his filing and a blank Judicial Complaint form packet has been sent to the pro se via regular mail} (pjh, ) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is hereby ORDERED, that plaintiff's motions to proceed IFP are GRANTED FOR PURPOSES OF FILING ONLY, and it is RECOMMENDED, that the twenty-one (21) above-captioned actions be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), and it is ORDERED, that plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED AS MOOT, and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order and Report-Recommendation on plaintiff by regular mail.( Objections to R&R due by 7/5/2022, Case Review Deadline 7/8/2022). Signed by US Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter on 6/21/2022. {Copy served upon pro se via regular mail}(pjh, )
|
| Filing 5 TEXT ORDER: Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee in this action, and his application to proceed in forma pauperis is currently under review by this court. Accordingly, there is no pending deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until plaintiff's IFP application has been addressed. So Ordered by U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter on 6/16/2022. [Copy served upon pro se plaintiff via regular mail](kmc) |
| Filing 4 PRO SE NOTICE issued and explained to Robert W. Johnson at time complaint was filed on 5/19/2022. (khr)(Pro se plaintiff provided copies of documents. Pro se plaintiff did not want the pro se handbook and local rules). |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Robert W. Johnson. Motions referred to Andrew T. Baxter. (khr) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Robert W. Johnson Motions referred to Andrew T. Baxter. (khr) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against Indeed, Springhill Suite Syracuse Carrier Circle filed by Robert W. Johnson. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Certificate of Service)(khr) |
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 New York Northern 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.
