Abraham v. Sallie Mae Inc
Plaintiff: Daniel Abraham
Defendant: Sallie Mae Inc
Case Number: 6:2010cv00929
Filed: April 15, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Greenville Office
County: Greenville
Presiding Judge: William M Catoe
Presiding Judge: Henry F Floyd
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
July 28, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER adopting 22 Report and Recommendations dismissing this action with prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Henry F Floyd on 7/28/2010.(alew, )
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: Abraham v. Sallie Mae Inc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Daniel Abraham
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: Sallie Mae Inc
Represented By: Peter Brendan Murphy
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?