No. 19-6162

Sean V. Terry v. Swift Transportation

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-10-04
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: bodily-autonomy civil-rights due-process employee-rights employment medical-ethics medical-examination privacy privacy-violation regulations workplace-conduct
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2019-11-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Question not identified

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Is it Lawful, for an “Employer appointed Physician, to require an Employee, or an Apprentice thereof, to “lower, or remove outer clothing, and underwear for the ; inspection of the exposed bare genitals? 2. Did Congress “intend” for Private individuals, to be able to “bring legal claims, against publicly traded Corporations, for violations pursuant to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations Act”? 3. What is this Court’s interpretation of The Greada Treaty of 1954? : 4. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, will the “absence of an official Court Seal displayed on a Plaintiff's Complaint, or, Amended Complaint suffice’? 5. Should any litigant (Pro Se), be instructed to proceed, although, a condition has not been : met, at the time of filing, as made (mandatory), pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? 6. Is there a conflict of interest, “if”, “a Judge, who has been (assigned) to preside over a Case in Court, is married to a Judge, who (was once a former employee of [T]he Defendant’s Law Office), employed as an Attorney”? 7. Should a Corporation be reprimanded for violating it’s own policies?

Docket Entries

2019-11-12
Petition DENIED.
2019-10-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/8/2019.
2019-10-17
Waiver of right of respondent Swift Transportation to respond filed.
2019-08-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 4, 2019)

Attorneys

Sean V. Terry
Sean V. Terry — Petitioner
Sean V. Terry — Petitioner
Swift Transportation
Kip David NelsonFox Rothschild LLP, Respondent
Kip David NelsonFox Rothschild LLP, Respondent