Rosario v. Neiman Marcus et al
| Rodney L. Rosario |
| Interstate Cleaning Corporation and Neiman Marcus |
| 3:2024cv00805 |
| September 4, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina |
| David Keesler |
| Frank D Whitney |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 9, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 3
ORDER (Sealed - Participants) denying #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice to pay the filing fee or refile an amended Application within twenty-one (21) days of this Order. Signed by District Judge Frank D. Whitney on 9/5/24. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(clc)
|
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Amended IFP Application due by 9/30/2024 or Filing Fee due by 9/30/2024. (clc) |
| Filing 2 MOTION (Sealed - Participants) to Proceed in forma pauperis by Rodney L. Rosario. (llp) |
| Filing 1 Pro Se COMPLAINT against Interstate Cleaning Corporation, Neiman Marcus with Jury Demand, filed by Rodney L. Rosario. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Proposed Summons)(llp) |
|
Standing Order of Instructions Regarding Pro Se Litigants in Civil Actions. Click on this link to retrieve the #Standing Order. Signed by District Judge Frank D. Whitney on 9/4/24. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(llp)
|
| Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence (3:24-mc-104). Click on this link to retrieve the #Standing Order (llp) |
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.
- 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.
