Workman v. Rogue Valley Sewer Services
Plaintiff: Melvin Workman
Defendant: Rogue Valley Sewer Services
Case Number: 1:2016cv00688
Filed: April 21, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office: Medford (1) Office
Presiding Judge: Mark D. Clarke
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2003 Job Discrimination
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 6, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 18 JUDGMENT: Based on the Stipulated Motion to Dismiss 17 , this case is dismissed with prejudice, and with no costs or fees awarded to either party. Ordered and Signed on 03/06/2017 by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm)
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 Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Workman v. Rogue Valley Sewer Services
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Rogue Valley Sewer Services
Represented By: Ronald W. Downs
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 ]
Plaintiff: Melvin Workman
Represented By: Andrew R. Wilson
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?