Toy v. South Point Hotel and Casino et al
| Joseph T. Toy |
| Clark County, Las Vegas Police Department, South Point Hotel and Casino and State of Nevada |
| 2:2014cv01723 |
| October 17, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Las Vegas Office |
| Cam Ferenbach |
| Andrew P. Gordon |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
5
ORDER re 4 Order on Report and Recommendation. Toy failed to respond and he therefore has not shown cause why his remaining claims should not be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. I therefore dismiss his remaining claims with prejudice. The clerk of court is directed to close this action. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 4/13/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER adopting in part 2 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff Joseph Toys claims asserted on behalf of his mother are DISMISSED with prejudice. That Plaintiff Joseph Toys claims against Defendant State of Nevada are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff Joseph Toy shall Show Cause in writing on or before February 23, 2015, why his remaining claims should not be dismissed as barred by the statue of limitations. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 1/23/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)
|
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 Nevada 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.
