No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Ragland's civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), finding no reversible error. The case was dismissed at the motion to dismiss stage.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
UNREPORTED OPINION DISMISSING CASE: The plaintiff filed his claim for wrongful discharge more than 18 years after April 16, 2007, and as a result his claims are untimely under 28 U.S.C. &167; 2501. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiff&039;s claims. The defendant&039;s [17] motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment. No costs are awarded
REPORTED ORDER granting Unopposed Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice. Joint Status Report due by 1/8/2021. Signed by Senior Judge Nancy B. Firestone. (lb) Service on parties made. Keywords re Order on Motion, Reported Order: Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) Conditional Certification
REPORTED ORDER Denying Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(6). The United States' Answer is due by 12/28/2020. The parties shall submit a Joint Preliminary Status Report by 1/11/2021. Signed by Judge David A. Tapp. (jm) Service on parties made.
REPORTED OPINION denying Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6). On or before 2/12/2021, defendant is directed to FILE an answer or otherwise respond to plaintiffs' complaint and on or before 2/12/2021, the parties are directed to CONFER and FILE a Joint Status Report informing the court of their positions on the consolidation of this case with any other matters before the court. Signed by Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith. (mp) Service on parties made. Modified font of text on 12/13/2020 Keywords re: Reported Order on Motion to Dismiss. Motion to Dismiss RCFC 12(b)(6) Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5550 Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596 Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341-42 Government Employees Fair Treatment Act of 2019 (GEFTA) Pub. L. No. 116-1, 133 Stat. 3 (2019).
REPORTED OPINION granting in part partial dismissal as to plaintiff's retaliation claim (Count II) and denying in part [32] Motion for Summary Judgment as to plaintiff's EPA claim (Count I). Pursuant to RCFC 54(b), as there is not just reason for delay, the clerk's office is directed to ENTER judgment DISMISSING Count II of plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without prejudice. On or before 12/4/2020, the parties are directed to CONFER and FILE a Joint Status Report. The status report shall state whether settlement is a feasible option in this case or whether the parties intend to file any additional dispositive motions. If dispositive motions are to be filed, the status report shall set forth a proposed schedule in that regard. If neither settlement nor dispositive motions are viable, the parties shall set forth a proposed schedule for the exchanges required by Appendix A, paragraph 13 and the filings required by paragraphs 14 through 17. Signed by Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith. (TQ) Service on parties made.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.