Taveras v. Semple et al
| Noe Taveras |
| Scott Semple, Bona, Nancy B., Gebeno and Castro |
| 3:2015cv00531 |
| April 10, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Fairfield |
| Victor A. Bolden |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
162
RULING. For the reasons stated in the attached Ruling, defendants' 148 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Please see attached Ruling for important details and deadlines. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 1/5/2023. (Katz, S.)
|
|
Filing
90
ORDER granting 86 Motion for relief from discovery order and denying 82 Motion for preliminary injunction. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 6/27/2020. (Leon, Noel)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER directing Plaintiff to file a notice with the Court containing the correct name and current work address of the Defendant referred to as "Chief of Medicine" "Dr. Castro" in 1 Complaint. Notice must be filed by 5/18/2015 or all claims against Defendant Castro will be dismissed. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 4/27/2015.(Dearing, S.)
|
|
Filing
7
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER re 1 Complaint filed by Noe Taveras. Discovery due by 11/18/2015; Dispositive Motions due by 12/18/2015. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 4/22/2015.(Dearing, S.)
|
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 Connecticut 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
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.
