Hicks v. McDonough
Plaintiff: Loretta Hicks
Defendant: Denis McDonough
Case Number: 4:2024cv01669
Filed: April 3, 2024
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Presiding Judge: R Bryan Harwell
Referring Judge: Thomas E Rogers
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 Job Discrimination (Age)
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 3, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 3, 2024 Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Denis McDonough. Service due by 7/2/2024. (dsto, )
April 3, 2024 Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories with jury demand by Loretta Hicks.(dsto, )
April 3, 2024 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Denis McDonough (Filing fee $405 receipt number ASCDC-11687441), filed by Loretta Hicks. Service due by 7/2/2024.(dsto, )

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: Hicks v. McDonough
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Loretta Hicks
Represented By: Pheobe A Clark
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: Denis McDonough
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?