Williams v. General Motors

Williams v. General Motors

Plaintiff:	Darlene M. Williams
Defendant:	General Motors
Case Number:	1:2013cv00336
Filed:	May 17, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office:	Cincinnati Office
County:	HAMILTON
Presiding Judge:	Stephanie K. Bowman
Presiding Judge:	S Arthur Spiegel
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 22, 2014	Filing 35 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 29 Report and Recommendation. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections 32 . Defendant's Motion toDismiss 23 is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the Court Orders this case CLOSED on the docket. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith; any application made to this Court to appeal in forma pauperis is thus prospecti vely DENIED. As a non-prisoner, however, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5), within 30 days after the Clerk serves her with this Order, Plaintiff is free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 8/21/2014. (km1)
July 29, 2013	Filing 8 ORDER re 4 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Darlene M. Williams, 5 Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel: the Court's previous ruling (Doc 5) is RESCINDED and Plaintiff's Motion for Assistance in Obtaining Counsel (Doc. 4) is DENIED. Plaintiff must proceed pro se. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 7/29/13. (jl1)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 22, 2014

Filing 35 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 29 Report and Recommendation. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections 32 . Defendant's Motion toDismiss 23 is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the Court Orders this case CLOSED on the docket. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith; any application made to this Court to appeal in forma pauperis is thus prospecti vely DENIED. As a non-prisoner, however, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5), within 30 days after the Clerk serves her with this Order, Plaintiff is free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 8/21/2014. (km1)

July 29, 2013

Filing 8 ORDER re 4 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Darlene M. Williams, 5 Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel: the Court's previous ruling (Doc 5) is RESCINDED and Plaintiff's Motion for Assistance in Obtaining Counsel (Doc. 4) is DENIED. Plaintiff must proceed pro se. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 7/29/13. (jl1)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Williams v. General Motors
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Darlene M. Williams
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: General Motors
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.

Why Is My Information Online?