Graham v. Bignall et al
| Billy Quinton Graham |
| Daniel Bignall, Brandon Williamson, Rodney Monroe, City of Charlotte-Mecklenburg and Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department |
| 3:2014cv00392 |
| July 16, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina |
| Charlotte Office |
| Mecklenburg |
| David S. Cayer |
| Robert J. Conrad |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 cv Notice of Removal - Civil Rights |
| Defendant |
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
43
CLERK'S JUDGMENT is hereby entered in accordance with the Court's Order dated October 19, 2015. Signed by Clerk, Frank G. Johns. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (tmg)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDERED that the Court finds good cause to continue the jury trial currently set for the trial term beginning on September 8, 2015. THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that the jury trial scheduled for the September 8, 2015 term will be c ontinued to the November 2, 2015 term at 9:30 a.m.( Jury Trial set for 11/2/2015 09:30 AM in Courtroom 2-1, 401 W Trade St, Charlotte, NC 28202 before District Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr.) Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 08/18/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(jlk)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER granting 13 Motion to Compel and within fourteen daysof this Order, Defendants shall produce the video in an accessible format. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 2/23/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)
|
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
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.
