NEAL v. SANDHILLS CENTER
| RONALD NEAL |
| SANDHILLS CENTER |
| 1:2023cv01017 |
| November 21, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| THOMAS D SCHROEDER |
| JOE L WEBSTER |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 18, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 REPLY, filed by Defendant SANDHILLS CENTER, to Response to #10 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) filed by SANDHILLS CENTER. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Charge of Discimination)(VAN CAMP, THOMAS) |
| Motion Submitted to JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER: #10 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6). (ae) |
| Filing 13 RESPONSE in Opposition re #10 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) filed by SANDHILLS CENTER filed by RONALD NEAL. Replies due by 1/22/2024 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1-6)(at) |
| Filing 12 Roseboro Letter as to Plaintiff RONALD NEAL. (at) |
| Filing 11 BRIEF re #10 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) . (VAN CAMP, THOMAS) |
| Filing 10 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) by SANDHILLS CENTER. Response to Motion due by 1/12/2024 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1. Affidavit of Evelyn M. Quick, #2 Exhibit 2. Affidavit of Cheryl Slack) (VAN CAMP, THOMAS) |
| Filing 9 Corporate Disclosure Statement identifying Corporate Parent SANDHILLS CENTER for SANDHILLS CENTER.. (VAN CAMP, THOMAS) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney THOMAS M. VAN CAMP on behalf of Defendant SANDHILLS CENTER (VAN CAMP, THOMAS) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by attorney THOMAS M. VAN CAMP on behalf of Defendant SANDHILLS CENTER (VAN CAMP, THOMAS) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by RONALD NEAL as to SANDHILLS CENTER served on 12/6/2023, answer due 12/27/2023. (at) |
| Filing 5 Notice of Right to Consent. Plaintiff shall serve the attached form on all parties. (Attachments: #1 Consent to jurisdiction) (al). |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to SANDHILLS CENTER. (al) |
| Case ASSIGNED to JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER and MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (al) |
| Filing 3 Notice of Signed Pro Se Electronic Service Consent by RONALD NEAL ronneal@gmail.com (al) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET. (al) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against SANDHILLS CENTER, filed by RONALD NEAL.(al) |
| Receipt of Funds in the amount of $ 402.00. Receipt Number 3163 (al) |
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
- 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: NEAL v. SANDHILLS CENTER | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: RONALD NEAL | |
| 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: SANDHILLS CENTER | |
| Represented By: | THOMAS M. VAN CAMP |
| 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.
