Roy v. Continuing Care RX, Inc.
Sajal Roy |
Continuing Care RX, Inc. |
1:2008cv02015 |
November 6, 2008 |
US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Civil Rights: Jobs Office |
Dauphin |
James M. Munley |
None |
Federal Question |
42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination) |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 41 MEMORANDUM and ORDER DENYING dft's objections [37; ADOPTING 36 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson; and DENYING 25 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable James M. Munley on 2/22/11 (sm, ) |
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 Middle 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: Roy v. Continuing Care RX, Inc. | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Sajal Roy | |
Represented By: | Rufus A. Jennings |
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: Continuing Care RX, Inc. | |
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.