Lemus v. Apker
Petitioner: Demetrius Lemus
Respondent: Lionel C Apker
Case Number: 4:2010cv00101
Filed: February 16, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office: Tucson Division Office
County: Pima
Presiding Judge: John M Roll
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
February 28, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 11 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Demetrius Lemus, 22 Report and Recommendations. Further ordered that this case be dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Signed by Judge Raner C Collins on 2/28/11. (BAR)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lemus v. Apker
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Lionel C Apker
Represented By: Charles Alexander Davis
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Demetrius Lemus
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?