Catone v. Postmaster General John E Potter
| Joe Catone |
| John E. Potter |
| 5:2008cv00132 |
| November 5, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| Watauga |
| Dennis Howell |
| Richard Voorhees |
| Plaintiff |
| U.S. Government Defendant |
| 29:791 Job Discrimination (Rehabilitation Act) |
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
9
CLERK'S JUDGMENT is hereby entered in accordance with the Court's Order dated March 22, 2010. Signed by Clerk, Frank G. Johns. (cbb)
|
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
| Search for this case: Catone v. Postmaster General John E Potter | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Joe Catone | |
| Represented By: | Daniel F. Read |
| 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: John E. Potter | |
| 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.
