Barley v. Garrett
| Jesse E. Barley |
| Lieutenant General William Garrett and John McHugh |
| 5:2013cv00293 |
| April 17, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Western Division Office |
| CUMBERLAND |
| Louise Wood Flanagan |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| None |
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
34
JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED in accordance with the court's orders entered May 1, 2013 and June 19, 2013, and for the reasons set forth more specifically therein, that plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order is denied, plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is denied, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, and defendants' alternative motion for summary judgment is denied. Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 06/20/2013. (Baker, C.)
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER granting 25 Motion to Dismiss; denying 25 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 28 Motion to Strike; denying 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction - Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 06/19/2013. (Baker, C.)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER granting 16 Motion to conduct telephonic hearing - The courtroom hearing scheduled for April 30, 2013, is cancelled, and the hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order shall be conducted by telephone at 1:30 p.m. on April 30, 2013. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 04/23/2013. (Baker, C.)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- 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.
