Wije v. Stuart et al
| Suran Wije |
| Ann Stuart, Robert Neely, Ann Staton, Jennifer Martin, Daniel Miller, Barbara Presnall, AnaLouise Keating, Linda Rubin, Stephen Souris, Claire Sahlin, Christian Hart, Danielle Phillips, Jane Doe, John Doe and Texas Woman's University |
| 4:2014cv00571 |
| September 4, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Sherman Office |
| Denton |
| Amos L. Mazzant |
| Civil Rights: Education |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
110
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, for 108 Report and Recommendation. Having received the report of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #108), having considered each of Plaintiff's tim ely filed objections (Dkt. #109), and having conducted a de novo review, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge's report (Dkt. #108) as the findings and conclusions of the Court. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. #107) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 7/13/2016. (kls, )
|
|
Filing
105
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE for 100 Report and Recommendation. Having received the report of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #100), havingconsidered each of Plaintiffs timely filed ob jections (Dkt. #101), and having conducted a de novo review, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge's report (Dkt. #100) as the findings and conclusio ns of the Court. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendants Texas Woman's University, Ann Stuart, Robert Neely, Ann Staton, Jennifer Martin, Daniel Miller, Barbara Presnall, AnaLouise Keating, Linda Rubin, Stephen Souris, Claire Sahlin, Chri stian Hart, and Danielle Phillips' First Amended Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #73) is DENIED as moot. It is further ORDERED that the TWU Defendants' Second Amended Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #78) and Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and Br ief in Support (Dkt. #96) are GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims against the TWU Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and failure to state a cl aim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. #102) is DENIED. All relief not previously granted is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this civil action. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 3/24/2016. (kls, )
|
|
Filing
99
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE for 94 Report and Recommendation. ORDERED that the United States Department of Education's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's "Fourth Amended Complaint " Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) (Dkt. #79) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Plaintiff's claims against the United States Department of Education are hereby dismissed in their entirety with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 1/19/2016. (kls, )
|
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 Texas Eastern 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.
