Glidden v. Furgal et al
| Phillip E Glidden |
| David Furgal, Craig Valentine, Sandra Harrison and Sheila E Edmunds |
| 3:2008cv01532 |
| April 10, 2008 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Civil Rights: Jobs Office |
| Lexington |
| Joseph F Anderson |
| Bristow Marchant |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
119
ORDER dismissing the action with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 04/18/2011. (bshr, )
|
|
Filing
86
ORDER denying 85 Motion to Overturn Order to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 2/23/2010.(jpet, )
|
|
Filing
82
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 68 Text Report and Recommendations, granting 50 Motion to Dismiss Individual Defendants And To Substitute The Department Head, dismissing defendants David Furgal, Craig Valentine, Chanel Frazier, Sandra Harrison, and Sheila Edmunds with prejudice and directing the be returned to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings on the merits regarding the remaining defendant John Potter, Postmaster General. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 10/01/09. (bshr, )
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 39 Report and Recommendations, granting defendants' 22 Motion to Dismiss, finding as moot 36 Motion to Stay Scheduling Order. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 03/11/09. (bshr, )
|
|
Filing
39
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Paige Gossett that the individual defendants should be dismissed because they are not proper parties to a TitleVII claim. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). Moreover, Glidden has failed to properly exhaust hi sadministrative remedies and has therefore not properly invoked the jurisdiction of the federal districtcourt. Accordingly, the court recommends that the defendants motion to dismiss (Docket Entry 22)be granted and that Gliddens complaint be dismisse d without prejudice. Further, the courtrecommends that, should the district court adopt this recommendation, the defendants motion tostay the scheduling order (Docket Entry 36) be terminated as moot. re 36 22 , 1 Objections to R&R due by 3/9/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige Jones Gossett on 2/20/09. (ahen, )
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
