Chipp v. Stokes III et al
| Walter James Chipp |
| Thomas Stokes III and ILA Local 1414 |
| 4:2015cv00020 |
| January 28, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia |
| Savannah Office |
| Chatham |
| G. R. Smith |
| William T. Moore |
| Other 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
48
JUDGMENT entered dismissing this case with prejudice. (loh)
|
|
Filing
45
ORDER directing the Clerk to submit the 44 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS with any objections to the Honorable William T. Moore, Jr. on 8/20/15. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 8/5/15. (wwp)
|
|
Filing
44
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS dismissing the 1 Complaint filed by Walter James Chipp. Chipp's 22 MOTION to Amend/Correct is granted. Defendants' 26 MOTION to dismiss should be granted. All remaining motions (docs 14, 16, 18, 32, 34,and 41) should be denied. Objections to R&R due by 8/19/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 8/5/15. (wwp)
|
|
Filing
35
ORDERED that plaintiff is directed to show cause within fourteen days from the entry of this Order why his case should not be dismissed for failure to participate in the Rule 26(f) conference or assist in the preparation of a proposed discovery plan. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 7/16/2015. (loh)
|
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 Georgia Southern 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.
