Bradford v. Conbraco Industries Inc
Plaintiff: Cathy H Bradford
Defendant: Conbraco Industries Inc
Case Number: 4:2008cv02085
Filed: June 2, 2008
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Civil Rights: Jobs Office
County: Chesterfield
Presiding Judge: R Bryan Harwell
Presiding Judge: Thomas E Rogers
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 42:1981 Sex Discrimination

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 18, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 53 ORDER RULING ON 48 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Defendant's 31 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 3/18/2010. (hcic)
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: Bradford v. Conbraco Industries Inc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Cathy H Bradford
Represented By: James Lewis Cromer
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: Conbraco Industries 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.


Why Is My Information Online?