Corgan v. Nevada Department of Public Safety Investigation Division, et al
| James Tracey Corgan |
| Inmate Servando Munoz Cortez, Commissioner DeeMar Dahl, Elko County Deputy Sheriffs and Jailers, Elko, County Of, Commissioner Glen Guttry, Clair Morris, Commissioner Charlie Myers, Nevada Department of Public Safety Investigation Division, Inmate Bryan Paige, Sheriff James Pitts, Commissioner Warren Russell, Mike Silva, Francisca Baustista(sp?) Villano and Commissioner Jeff Williams |
| Detective Mike Keema, Sgt Kelly Stuehling and Detective Brad Warwick |
| 3:2014cv00692 |
| December 31, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Reno Office |
| William G. Cobb |
| Robert C. Jones |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
118
ORDER dismissing with prejudice this action based on Plaintiff's failure to file an updated address with the Court in compliance with ECF No. 116 Order; directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly and close case. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 8/1/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
|
Filing
116
ORDER that Plaintiff shall file his updated address with the Court by 5/26/2019; if Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 4/26/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
|
|
Filing
102
ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 83 ) AS TO THE SOLE § 1983 FEDERAL CLAIM is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law cl aims and DISMISS the remaining state law claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 7/19/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
|
Filing
100
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the District Judge enter an order GRANTING Defendants' motion ECF No. 83 with respect to the sole § 1983 claim; DECLINING to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remai ning state law claims, and DISMISSING the remaining state law claims without prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 7/4/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 06/20/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
|
|
Filing
92
ORDER granting ECF No. 91 Stipulation : Response to ECF No. 83 MOTION for Summary Judgment due by 2/3/2017. Reply due by 2/17/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 2/2/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
|
Filing
45
ORDER adopting and accepting 42 Report and Recommendation; granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 8 / 31 Motion to Dismiss; directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 7/8/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
|
|
Filing
37
ORDER granting 34 Motion to Set Aside 27 Clerk's Entry of Default. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 5/19/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER granting ## 13 Stipulation/ 12 Motion to Extend Time : Response to # 8 MOTION to Dismiss due by 3/2/2015. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/30/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
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.
