Rosier v. TargetX
Plaintiff: Michael K Rosier
Defendant: TargetX
Case Number: 2:2017cv01306
Filed: May 19, 2017
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Charleston Office
County: Charleston
Presiding Judge: Mary Gordon Baker
Presiding Judge: Richard M Gergel
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 12117
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
April 17, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER AND OPINION adopting 21 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; granting 13 Partial Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 4/16/2018.(ssam, )
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 South Carolina District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rosier v. TargetX
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael K Rosier
Represented By: J David Murrell
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: TargetX
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?