LONG v. LIBERTYWOOD NURSING CENTER et al
||BRIDGET M. LONG
||LIBERTYWOOD NURSING CENTER, WILLIAM SCHUTZ and DEBBIE DRAUGHN
||April 17, 2013
||North Carolina Middle District Court
||L. PATRICK AULD
||WILLIAM L. OSTEEN
|Nature of Suit:
||Civil Rights: Jobs
|Cause of Action:
||42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|February 24, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN JR. on 2/24/2015, that Plaintiff's Pro Se Motion/Request that the Court Subpoena Witnesses for Trial (Doc. 28 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. FURTHER that Plaintiff's Pro S e Motion/ Request that Mediation Fees be Waived (Doc. 29 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff will not be required to pay mediation costs. FURTHER that Plaintiff's Motion Request to file Report in Court Records of Mediation Session Results and Reli ef from Assessed Payment of $500 (Doc. 48 ) is DENIED. FURTHER that Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Affidavit (Doc. 53 ) is DENIED. FURTHER that Defendant's Motion to Strike Two of Plaintiff's Exhibi ts (Doc. 56 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant's Motion to Strike page 28 of Plaintiff's Brief (Doc. 52 ) is GRANTED, but Defendant's Motion to Strike page 23-24 of Plaintiff's Brief is DENIED. FURTHER that Plaintiff's Pre-trial Motion For United States Constitutional Law Clarity Concerns And Civil Rights Court Proceedings (Doc. 61 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 44 ) is GRANTED and that this action is DISMISSED. A judgment consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order and the Memorandum Opinion and Order filed January 28, 2014, will be entered contemporaneously herewith. (Daniel, J)
|July 23, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 7/23/2014, that Defendants Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures (Docket Entry 31 ) is GRANTED, except as to Defendant's requests for sanctions, expense-shifting, and mo dification of the Scheduling Order. FURTHER that Plaintiff must serve upon Defendant, on or before August 1, 2014, a list of names of individuals likely to have discoverable information, including such individuals' addresses, telephone numbers, and the subjects of that information. Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of this action.(Daniel, J)
|January 28, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN JR. on 1/28/2014, that Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 13 , as more specifically stated in Doc. 14 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is DENIE D as to Plaintiff's claim of retaliation in violation of Title VII as described in the Complaint and related attachment. The motion is GRANTED as to any other claim for relief. FURTHER, that Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Defendants William Schutz and Debbie Draughn, and those Defendants are DISMISSED from this action. (Daniel, J)
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 Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?