Schaffers v. Methodist LeBonheur et al
| Christopher Schaffers |
| Methodist LeBonheur, Karen Faught, Cathy Scales, Anne Thompson, Henry, Claudia Washington, Elda Vaughan, Ebony Walker, Tine Sims and Shane |
| 2:2023cv02797 |
| December 19, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee |
| Memphis Office |
| Thomas L Parker |
| Tu M Pham |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 Job Discrimination (Race) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 1, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re #1 Pro Se Complaint filed by Christopher Schaffers. Objections to R&R due by 2/15/2024. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on February 1, 2024. (cmd) |
Filing 9
ORDER granting #7 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on February 1, 2024. (cmd)
|
| Filing 8 Case initiation fee: $ 405.00, receipt number 3272. (mlk) |
| Filing 7 Pro Se MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Christopher Schaffers. (csf) |
| Filing 6 ATTACHMENT to #1 Pro Se Complaint EEOC Notice of Right to Sue by Christopher Schaffers. (Attachments: #1 attempt to make copy larger)(csf) |
| Pursuant to Administrative Order 2013-05, this case has been assigned to the United States magistrate judge for management of all pretrial matters, including screening of the complaint to determine whether or not summons shall be issued by the Clerk pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) and Local Rule 4.1(b)(2) (csf) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER directing Plaintiff to file a properly completed In Forma Pauperis Affidavit or pay the civil filing fee. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on December 21, 2023. (cmd)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO COMPLY WITH PLAN FOR ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR): Pursuant to Section to 2.1 of the ADR Plan, all civil cases filed on or after Sept. 1, 2014, shall be referred automatically for ADR. For compliance requirements, refer to the ADR Plan at: http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/pdf/content/ADRPlan.pdf (csf) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CONSENT TO THE EXERCISE OF CIVIL JURISDICTION BY A MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c), Fed.R.Civ.P.73, and Local Rule 72.1, this Court has designated the Magistrate Judges of this District to conduct trials and otherwise dispose of any civil case that is filed in this Court. Your decision to consent, or not consent, to the referral of your case to a United States Magistrate Judge for trial and entry of a final judgment must be entirely voluntary. The judge or magistrate judge to whom the case has been assigned will not be informed of your decision unless all parties agree that the case may be referred to a magistrate judge for these specific purposes. A less than unanimous decision will not be communicated by this office to either the judge or magistrate judge. The consent form is available on the courts website at https://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/forms-and-applications.php (csf) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF CASE TRACKING ASSIGNMENT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 16.2: Pursuant to Local Rule 16.2, this case has been assigned to the Standard track. http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/pdf/content/LocalRules.pdf (csf) |
| Filing 1 PRO SE COMPLAINT Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000ra against All Defendants, filed by Christopher Schaffers. (Attachments: #1 Case assignment label)(csf) |
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 Tennessee Western 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
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.
