Cunningham v. USPS et al
| Anthony Cunningham |
| USPS, Manager Maintenance Ronald Smith, Manager Maintenance Gary Bush, Manager Maintenance Edward Hanks, Manager Maintenance Paggie Matlock, Ronald Smith, Gary Bush, Edward Hanks and Paggie Matlock |
| 1:2023cv01302 |
| June 30, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Charles Esque Fleming |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 9, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 2
Original Summonses and Magistrate Consent Form issued over the counter for service upon Gary Bush, Edward Hanks, Paggie Matlock, Ronald Smith, USPS. (Attachments: #1 Magistrate Consent Form) (R,AP)
|
|
Filing 1
Complaint against USPS, Ronald Smith, Gary Bush, Edward Hanks, and Paggie Matlock. Filing fee paid $402.00 Receipt #146180. Filed by Anthony Cunningham. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Statement of Claim, #3 Summons, #4 USM-285 #5 Summons) (R,AP).
|
|
Financial Transaction in the amount of $402.00 received from Anthony Cunningham. Receipt #146180. Related document(s) #1 . (R,AP)
|
|
Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge James E. Grimes Jr. (R,AP)
|
|
Judge Charles Esque Fleming assigned to case. (R,AP)
|
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 Ohio Northern 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
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.
