JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
| VICTORIA JOHNSON |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 1:2009cv00957 |
| December 15, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| NCMD Office |
| Orange |
| P. TREVOR SHARP |
| UNASSIGNED |
| Taxes |
| 26 U.S.C. ยง 7426 IRS: Wrongful Levy for Taxes |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
61
MEMORANDUM OPINION, RECOMMENDATION, AND ORDER OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 01/17/2012. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw (Docket Entry 60 ) is GRANTED. IT IS RECOMMENDED that the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 47 ) be GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Motion of Victoria Johnson for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 49 ) be DENIED.(Taylor, Abby)
|
|
Filing
43
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 05/23/2011. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1) on or before June 22, 2011, any party may file a dispositive motion and supporting brief; 2) on or before July 22, 2011, any party oppos ing such a dispositive motion shall file a response; and 3) on or before August 5, 2011, any party that filed such a dispositive motion may file a reply to any such response. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove this case from the July 2011 Master Trial Calendar and shall place the case on a future Master Trial Calendar that affords the Court an adequate opportunity to consider any dispositive motion filed pursuant to the new briefing schedule.(Taylor, Abby)
|
|
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 11/9/10, that the Motion to Amend Counterclaim and Third-Party Complaint to Add Third-Party Defendants by the United States (Docket Entry 23 ) is GRANTED. The Amended Counterclaim a nd Third-Party Complaint filed by the United States (Docket Entry 24 ) shall stand as a proper pleading in this case and the United States shall make prompt service on Matthew and Hunter Schofield under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Once that s ervice has been accomplished and the new parties have made a responsive pleading, the parties immediately shall consult about whether the discovery period should be re-opened or other case management deadlines should be adjusted in light of this amendment and shall file a status report with the Court identifying any areas of agreement or dispute between them regarding such matters. (Law, Trina)
|
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 Middle 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
| Search for this case: JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: VICTORIA JOHNSON | |
| Represented By: | WILLIAM YOUNG WEBB |
| 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: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | |
| 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.
