THOMAS v. SCHLEGEL
Plaintiff: DALE A. THOMAS
Defendant: DOUGLAS SCHLEGEL
Case Number: 5:2014cv01282
Filed: February 28, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Office: Allentown Office
County: Northampton
Presiding Judge: JAMES KNOLL GARDNER
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981
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
February 11, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ORDER THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NOS. 6 ) IS GRANTED AND THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 2/11/15. 2/12/15 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE, E-MAILED. (mas, )
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 Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: THOMAS v. SCHLEGEL
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: DALE A. THOMAS
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: DOUGLAS SCHLEGEL
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?