Moore v. Burger King et al
Plaintiff: Ricky L Moore
Defendant: Burger King and Matthew Daugherty
Case Number: 3:2011cv00151
Filed: May 9, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Dayton Office
County: MONTGOMERY
Presiding Judge: Michael R Merz
Presiding Judge: Walter H Rice
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
September 25, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 31 CLERKS JUDGMENT WITH ATTACHED NOTICE OF DISPOSAL. Signed on 09/25/12. (pb1)
July 5, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 26 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - This Court concludes that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that Defendants Burger King and Matthey Dougherty are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It is therefore recommended that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 22 ), be granted. It is also recommended that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff and that the Complaint (Doc. 2 ) herein be dismissed with prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 7/23/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 7/5/12. (kje1)
May 21, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF UPON FILING OF A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 22 . You are hereby notified that the Defendants filed with the Court on May 18, 2012, a motion for summary judgment in this case (Doc 22 ). You should receive a copy of the mot ion directly from the Defendants. Under the rules of this Court (S.D. Ohio L.R. 7.2) you are allowed twenty-one days from the date of service (May 18, 2012) within which to file a response to this motion, plusan extra three days because of the way the motion was sent to you. Your response must be filed with the Court not later than June 11, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/21/2012. (kf)
May 10, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT - Before the Court can complete its initial analysis, it needs to have from the Plaintiff any Right to Sue letter which he received from the EEOC; a suit under Title VII cannot proceed in the absence of such a letter. Plaintiff is accordingly ordered to file a copy of his right to sue letter, along with a copy of any charges he filed with OCRC or EEOC not later than May 20, 2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/10/2011. (kpf1)
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: Moore v. Burger King et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ricky L Moore
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: Burger King
Represented By: Katharine C Weber
Represented By: David A. Nenni
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: Matthew Daugherty
Represented By: David A. Nenni
Represented By: Katharine C Weber
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?