WADE v. (UPS) UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
| CHINEQUA WADE |
| (UPS) UNITED PARCEL SERVICE |
| 5:2019cv02088 |
| May 13, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| EDWARD G SMITH |
| Civil Rights: Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 17, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
ORDER OF 6/17/2019 THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF (DOC. NO. 7) AND THE COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 1), IT IS ORDERED THAT THE MOTION (DOC. NO. 7) IS GRANTED AS FOLLOWS: THE COURT IS DIRECTED TO REFER THIS MATTER TO THE PLAINTIFFS' EMPLOYMENT PANEL ("PANEL") TO ATTEMPT TO LOCATE COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF. ETC. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO PLACE THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED MATTER IN CIVIL SUSPENSE UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. ETC. SIGNED BY JUDGE: EDWARD G. SMITH ON 6/17/2019. 6/17/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED AND MAILED TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF AND UNREP PARTY. (DT) Modified on 6/17/2019 (dt, ). Modified on 6/17/2019 (dt, ).
|
| 1 Original Summons Issued as to (UPS) UNITED PARCEL SERVICE. Forwarded To: Pro Se Plaintiff Chinequa Wade on 6/12/2019. (DT) |
| Filing 7 MOTION OF PRO SE PLAINTIFF CHINEQUA WADE FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL..(DT) |
| Filing 6 EXHIBIT to complaint by CHINEQUA WADE.. (DT) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER OF 5/16/2019 THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE APPLICAITON FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS FILED BY THE PRO SE PLAINTIFF, (DOC. NO. 1), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOC. NO. 1) IS DENIED BECAUSE SHE HAS SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO PAY THE $350.00 FILING FEE AND $50.00 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE TO COMMENCE THIS CASE; IF THE PLAINITFF SEES TO PROCEED WITH THIS CASE, SHE SHALL REMIT $400 TO THE CLERK OF COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER; AND IF THE PLAINTIFF FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER, THE COURT MAY DISMISS HER CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. SIGNED BY JUDGE: EDWARD G. SMITH ON 5/16/2019. 5/16/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF. (DT)
|
| Filing 4 PRO SE NOTICE RE:GUIDELINES (DT) |
| Filing 3 REQUEST OF PRO SE PLAINTIFF CHINEQUA WADE FOR APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY. (DT) Modified on 5/21/2019 (nd, ). |
| Filing 2 APPLICATION OF PRO SE PLAINTIFF CHINEQUA WADE TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS. (DT) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against (UPS) UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, filed by CHINEQUA WADE. (IFP PENDING) (Attachments: #1 Designation Form)(DT) Modified on 5/15/2019 (DT). |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: WADE v. (UPS) UNITED PARCEL SERVICE | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: (UPS) UNITED PARCEL SERVICE | |
| 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: CHINEQUA WADE | |
| 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.
