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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

13-617 - FORDHAM v. KELLER et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
13-617 - FORDHAM v. KELLER et al
March 12, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 03/12/2015. For the reasons stated herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Defendants Crutchfield, Ranson, Leakez, Starr and Barnes' Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 21) be DENIED, and Defendant Barnes' Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 34) be GRANTED. FURTHERMORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Docket Entry 43) is DENIED.(Taylor, Abby)
March 31, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER signed by JUDGE JAMES A. BEATY, JR on 03/31/2015, that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [Doc. #49] is therefore affirmed and adopted for the reasons set forth therein. ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #21] filed by Defendants Gary Crutchfield, Chandra Ranson, and Neal Leakez and joined in by Defendants Lisa Starr and Daniel Barnes [Doc. #32 & #33] is DENIED, and the Motion to Dismiss [Doc.#34] filed by Defendant Daniel Barnes, pertaining to only himself, is GRANTED. (Taylor, Abby)
March 22, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE JAMES A. BEATY, JR on 03/20/2017, that Defendants Gary Crutchfield, Neal Leakez, Chandra Ransom and Lisa Starr's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 68) is GRANTED. As to all unserved Defendants, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. To the extent Plaintiff's letter document (Docket Entry 75) is construed as a motion for an extension of time and a motion for reconsideration, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this motion is denied.(Taylor, Abby)
December 12, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 12/11/2017. For the reasons stated herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend pursuant to Rule 59 (e) (Docket Entry 87) be DENIED. FURTHER that to the extent Plaintiff seeks to file a supplemental Rule 59(e) motion, his motion (Docket Entry 94) be DENIED. To the extent requested, Plaintiff's filing should be construed as a notice of appeal. FURTHER that Plaintiff's motion to file a late notice of appeal (Docket Entry 95) be DENIED as moot.(Taylor, Abby)