WORMARK v. SHINSEKI

WORMARK v. SHINSEKI

Plaintiff:	RAYMOND D. WORMACK
Defendant:	ERIC K. SHINSEKI
Case Number:	2:2009cv00916
Filed:	July 14, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Office:	Pittsburgh Office
County:	Fayette
Presiding Judge:	Nora Barry Fischer
Nature of Suit:	Plaintiff
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
October 14, 2010	Filing 44 MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that, for reasons stated more fully within, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts that raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in th e complaint are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545. Accordingly, Defendants Motion to Dismiss 40 is granted, and Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 39 ) and Addendum (Docket No. 43 ) are dismissed, with prejudice. Plaintiff will not be granted leave to file a third complaint because amendment in this case would be futile. An appropriate Order follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 10/14/10. (jg)
July 1, 2010	Filing 37 MEMORANDUM OPINION (details more fully stated in said Opinion); An appropriate Order follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 7/1/10. (jg)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 14, 2010

Filing 44 MEMORANDUM OPINION indicating that, for reasons stated more fully within, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts that raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in th e complaint are true. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545. Accordingly, Defendants Motion to Dismiss 40 is granted, and Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 39 ) and Addendum (Docket No. 43 ) are dismissed, with prejudice. Plaintiff will not be granted leave to file a third complaint because amendment in this case would be futile. An appropriate Order follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 10/14/10. (jg)

July 1, 2010

Filing 37 MEMORANDUM OPINION (details more fully stated in said Opinion); An appropriate Order follows. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 7/1/10. (jg)

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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: WORMARK v. SHINSEKI
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: RAYMOND D. WORMACK
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: ERIC K. SHINSEKI
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?