Abdissa v. Merck Corporate
Temesgen Teshome Abdissa |
Merck Corporate |
5:2015cv00393 |
September 28, 2015 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
Western Division Office |
WAKE |
Terrence W. Boyle |
Civil Rights: Jobs |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 38 ORDER granting 21 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 36 Motion to Disqualify Judge. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 1/5/2017. Certified copy sent to Temesgen Teshome Abdissa via US Mail to 6806 Horseback Ln., Raleigh, NC 27610. (Stouch, L.) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Abdissa v. Merck Corporate | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Temesgen Teshome Abdissa | |
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: Merck Corporate | |
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.