Rudolph v. Buncombe County Government et al
| Yvett C. Rudolph |
| Buncombe County Government, Amanda Stone, Martin Phillips and Ann Lunsford |
| 1:2010cv00203 |
| September 20, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina |
| Asheville Office |
| Buncombe |
| Dennis Howell |
| Martin Reidinger |
| Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| 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
63
JUDGMENT in favor of Buncombe County Government, Amanda Stone, Ann Lunsford, Martin Phillips against Yvett C. Rudolph together with costs, and the Plaintiff shall have and recover nothing by virtue of this action, and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 3/1/12. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(nll)
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER striking 53 Response in Opposition to Motion. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 11/15/11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before ten (10) business days from entry of this Order, the Plaintiff may file a brief in response to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment which does not exceed twentyfive (25) pages in length. The brief must be double-spaced in fourteen (14) point type.(Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(nll)
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER denying 39 Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order 37 ; denying 41 Motion to Compel discovery; denying 41 Motion for Extension of Time to coordinate responsive motion to defendants' proposed sum mary judgment ; denying 41 Motion to order subpoenas ; denying 45 Motion for Extension of Time to Edit/Change Plaintiff's Testimony. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 11/4/2011. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(pdf)
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER re 49 MOTION for Summary Judgment . The Plaintiff may respond in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on or before November 7, 2011. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 10/20/2011. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh)
|
|
Filing
37
ORDER denying 35 Motion to terminate or limit examination of pro se Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 9/6/11. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(siw)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER that Plaintiff's Reply to Answer 20 is hereby deemed withdrawn; further denying without prejudice as premature 20 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 22 Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, for an Extension of Time. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 5/16/11. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(siw)
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER denying as moot 31 Motion to Deem Case Unsuitable for Alternative Resolution Dispute Program. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 3/31/11. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(siw)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER granting 30 Motion to Excuse Case From Requirement of Mediation and the parties are excused from the requirement of conducting a mediated settlement conference in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 3/28/11. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(siw)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER that the parties file their designation of mediator, or an appropriate motion as discussed herein, not later than March 25, 2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 3/14/11. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(siw)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER denying 25 Motion to Strike Defendant's Negative Averments of "Misconduct['] and 'Negligence' from Answer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 3/1/11. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(siw)
|
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.
