Walton v. Lockheed Martin Aircraft Center
Plaintiff: Michael Walton
Defendant: Lockheed Martin Aircraft Center
Case Number: 6:2009cv00462
Filed: February 24, 2009
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Civil Rights: Jobs Office
County: Greenville
Presiding Judge: Bruce Howe Hendricks
Presiding Judge: Henry M Herlong
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
October 7, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 99 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 93 Report and Recommendations that 85 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Lockheed Martin Aircraft Center, is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 10/7/10. (kmca)
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: Walton v. Lockheed Martin Aircraft Center
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael Walton
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: Lockheed Martin Aircraft Center
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?