Moody v. Wellpath Recovery Solutions, LLC
| Karen Moody |
| Wellpath Recovery Solutions, LLC |
| 3:2024cv00853 |
| February 20, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Shiva V Hodges |
| Mary Geiger Lewis |
| Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 2601 Family Medical Leave Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 27, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 ***DOCUMENT MAILED #11 Proper Form Order and one Form USM-285 placed in U.S. Mail from Columbia Clerks Office to Karen Moody, 112 Oswald Farm Lane, St. Matthews, SC 29135. (lbak) |
Filing 11
PROPER FORM ORDER Case to be brought into proper form by 4/17/2024. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 3/27/2024. (lbak)
|
| Filing 8 ***DOCUMENTS MAILED 6 Text Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, #7 Proper Form Order and one Form USM-285 placed in U.S. Mail from Columbia Clerks Office to Karen Moody, 112 Oswald Farm Lane, St. Matthews, SC 29135. (lbak) |
|
Filing 7
PROPER FORM ORDER Case to be brought into proper form by 3/21/2024. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 2/29/2024. (lbak)
|
|
Filing 6
TEXT ORDER: Plaintiff applied to proceed in the District Court without prepaying fees or costs. [ECF No. 2]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915, the court construes this application as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. 1915. A review of the motion reveals that Plaintiff should be relieved of the obligation to prepay the full filing fee. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, subject to the court's right to require a payment if Plaintiff's financial condition changes, and to tax fees and costs against Plaintiff at the conclusion of this case if the court finds the case to be without merit. See Flint v. Haynes, 651 F.2d 970, 972-74 (4th Cir. 1981). Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 2/29/24. (vhor)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Restricted Access) by Karen Moody. Response to Motion due by 3/5/2024. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. Motions referred to Shiva V. Hodges. (lbak) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Wellpath Recovery Solutions, LLC, filed by Karen Moody. (lbak) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Moody v. Wellpath Recovery Solutions, LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Karen Moody | |
| 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: Wellpath Recovery Solutions, LLC | |
| 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.
