Mills v. City of Norfolk
| Rodney Mills |
| City of Norfolk, Virginia |
| 2:2021cv00185 |
| April 12, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Raymond A Jackson |
| Douglas E Miller |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 17, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
AMENDED ANSWER to #1 Complaint by City of Norfolk, Virginia. (McClellan, Kristopher)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER granting #7 Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer. The Defendant, City of Norfolk shall file the Amended Answer attached to the Memorandum supporting the Motion (ECF No. 8-1) as a separate document on CM/ECF within five days from the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller on June 9, 2021. (Miller, Douglas)
|
|
MOTION REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller: #7 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Amended Answer (jhie, )
|
|
Filing 8
Memorandum in Support re #7 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Amended Answer filed by City of Norfolk, Virginia. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit City of Norfolk Amended Answer, #2 Exhibit Acknowledgment of Consent)(Beverly, Michael)
|
|
Filing 7
Consent MOTION for Leave to File Amended Answer by City of Norfolk, Virginia. (Beverly, Michael)
|
|
Filing 6
RULE 26(f) PRETRIAL ORDER: Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference set for 6/16/2021 at 11:00 AM in Norfolk Remote. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller on 5/18/21 & filed on 5/19/21. (ptom, )
|
|
Refer for 16(b) (jhie, )
|
|
Filing 5
Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint by City of Norfolk, Virginia.(McClellan, Kristopher)
|
|
Filing 4
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Rodney Mills City of Norfolk, Virginia served on 4/20/2021, answer due 5/11/2021 (Montgomery, Wayne)
|
|
Filing 3
Summons Issued as to City of Norfolk, Virginia. NOTICE TO ATTORNEY: Print out two electronically issued summons and one copy of the attachments for each defendant to be served with the complaint. (Attachments: #1 Civil Motions Procedures)(epri, )
|
|
Filing 2
Proposed Summons re #1 Complaint by Rodney Mills. (Montgomery, Wayne)
|
|
Filing 1
Complaint ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0422-7718472.), filed by Rodney Mills. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Montgomery, Wayne)
|
|
Initial Case Assignment to District Judge Raymond A. Jackson and Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller. (epri, )
|
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 Virginia Eastern 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
| Search for this case: Mills v. City of Norfolk | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: City of Norfolk, Virginia | |
| Represented By: | Kristopher Richard McClellan |
| Represented By: | Michael Angelo Beverly |
| Represented By: | Heather Ann Mullen |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff: Rodney Mills | |
| Represented By: | Wayne Barry Montgomery |
| 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.
