Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-134 - Markham v. Pima, County of et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-134 - Markham v. Pima, County of et al
September 29, 2016
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, GRANT IN PART and DENY in part Defendants' 23 Motion to Dismiss as follows. DENY Defendants' Motion to Dismiss: 14th Amendment claim against Defendants Jansen, Dixon and Curtin; ADA claim against Defendants Jansen, Dixon and Curtin. GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without leave to refile: 6th Amendment claim against Defendants Jansen, Dixon and Curtin; 8th Amendment claim against Defendants Jansen, Dixon and Curtin; all claims against Defendant PCSD; all claims against Defendants Dupnik and Nanos in their official capacity. GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend: 5th Amendment claim against Defendants Jansen, Dixon and Curtin; all claims against Defendants Dupnik and Nanos in their individual capacity; all claims against Defendant Pima County. This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. No replies shall be filed without leave of the District Court. If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 16-134-TUC-JAS. (See attached PDF for complete information). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M Rateau on 9/28/16.(BAC)
December 1, 2016
PDF | More
ORDERED Magistrate Judge Rateau's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 38) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 23) is granted in part and denied in part as discussed in the Report and Recommendation. The motion for an extension of time (Doc. 42) is granted. This case is hereby referred back to Magistrate Judge Rateau for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation. Signed by Judge James A Soto on 12/1/2016. (KEP)
August 22, 2017
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Defendants' 23 Motion to Dismiss as reflected in this order. This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal, should not be filed until entry of District Court's judgment. The parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. Thereafter, parties have 14 days within which to file a response to the objections. No replies shall be filed without leave of the District Court. If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 16-134-TUC-JAS. Failure to timely file objections may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M Rateau on 8/22/17.(BAC)
October 16, 2017
PDF | More
rial proceedings and report and recommendation. Signed by Judge James A Soto on 10/13/17. (KAH)ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 79. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 55) is granted in part and denied in part as discussed in the Report and Recommendation. This case is hereby referred back to Magistrate Judge Rateau for all pret
February 21, 2018
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, DENY Plaintiff's 102 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint FRCP 15(A)(2). This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. Parties have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. Thereafter, parties have 14 days within which to file a response to the objections. No replies shall be filed without leave of the District Court. If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 16-134-TUC-JAS. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M Rateau on 2/21/18.(BAC)
April 12, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 107. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint (Doc. 102) is denied. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply (Doc. 112) is denied. This case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Rateau for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation. Signed by Judge James A Soto on 4/11/18. (KAH)