Thomas v. Cumberland County Board of Education et al
Plaintiff: Anita Thomas
Defendant: Cumberland County Board of Education, Vanstory Hills Elementary School and Betty Musslewhite
Case Number: 5:2010cv00552
Filed: December 6, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
Office: Western Division Office
County: HARNETT
Presiding Judge: Terrence W. Boyle
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331
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
October 9, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 139 ORDER denying 133 Motion for Reconsideration and denying 136 Motion for Leave to Use Original Record - Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 10/09/2013. (Baker, C.)
September 23, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 132 JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED in accordance with the court's order entered September 23, 2013, and for the reasons set forth more specifically therein, that defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied. Plaintiff shall have and recover nothing from this action. Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 09/23/2013. (Baker, C.)
July 16, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 99 ORDER denying 95 Motion for Judicial Decision and Adoption of 94 Rule 26(f) Report and denying 97 Motion for Summary Judgment - Defendants have twenty-one (21) days from date of entry of this order within which to file response to plaintiff& #039;s amended complaint. The court suspends requirement that the parties tender joint or separate reports and plans as previously required pending defendants' response to the amended complaint recently filed and decision on motion if any filed by defendants as part of their response. Thereafter, the court will invite separate reports and plans, review same, and make its decision in the form of a case management order. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 07/16/2012. (Baker, C.)
May 18, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 92 ORDER - The court ADOPTS in full the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, plaintiff's motions to amend complaint (DE # 35, 50) are GRANTED in part as to plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim against defendant s CCBOE and Vanstory only, and DENIED in part as to all other claims. Defendants' motions to dismiss (DE # 36, 56, 72) are DENIED AS MOOT, and plaintiff's motion to remove records (DE # 82) is GRANTED. The filing lodged at docket entry 67- 1 is to be STRICKEN from the record. The parties now are DIRECTED to confer within twenty-one (21) days of date of entry of this order. Within fourteen (14) days of conference, the parties shall submit to the court a joint report and plan detailing the deadlines and relevant information for case scheduling events remaining to take place. Where this matter is currently set for trial to begin July 16,2012, the Clerk is DIRECTED to remove this matter from the court's civil trial calendar on that date in light of the decisions made herein. New trial date will be set upon receipt and consideration of the parties' joint report. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 05/16/2012. (Baker, C.)
November 15, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 81 ORDER granting 40 Motion to Stay Discovery - Following decisions on the motions to dismiss, if necessary, the court will enter further order as necessary to update the case management order and set forth a discovery schedule tailored to meet the needs of the parties and this forum. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 11/14/2011. (Baker, C.)
August 18, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 33 ORDER granting 24 Motion to Amend 9 Complaint and denying as moot without prejudice to renewal 17 Motion to Dismiss - Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 08/17/2011. (Baker, C.)
May 19, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER declining to adopt 8 Memorandum and Recommendations - It does not clearly appear from the face of the complaint that plaintiff is not entitiled to relief, thus the matter is ALLOWED to proceed. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 05/17/2011. (Baker, C.)
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 North Carolina Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Thomas v. Cumberland County Board of Education 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: Anita Thomas
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: Cumberland County Board of Education
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: Vanstory Hills Elementary School
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: Betty Musslewhite
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?