Miller v. Galaz et al
| Amanda F Miller |
| Maritza Galaz, Adam Sedlmeier, Russell L Pope and Scott Kendrick |
| 4:2016cv00140 |
| March 16, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Tucson Division Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Cindy K Jorgenson |
| Eric J Markovich |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 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
53
ORDERED: adopting Report and Recommendations re 51 Report and Recommendation; granting 17 Motion to Dismiss; granting 26 Motion for Permission to Correct form of Pleading Complaint; granting 31 and 33 Motions to Strike; denying 46 Motion to Strike; striking Documents 28, 32, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47 and 48 from the record; denying 36 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 34 Motion for Permission to Serve Supplementary Pleading and Questionnaire/Opposition to Defen dant's Motion to Strike; granting 44 Motion to Seal Document; denying 50 Motion for Leave to File Notice of Removal; denying 52 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Jennifer G Zipps on 10/20/2016.(BAR)
|
|
Filing
51
*REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court: GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and dismiss Defendant Tucson Police Department as a party to this action 17 ). GRANT Plaint iff's Motion for Permission to Correct Form of Pleading Complaint ( 26 ). GRANT Defendant's Motions to Strike( 31 and 33 ). DENY Defendant's Motion to Strike ( 46 ). STRIKE Documents 28 , 32 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 47 , and 48 from the record. DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ( 36 ). DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Permission to Serve Supplementary Pleading and Questionnaire/Opposition to Defendant's Motions to Strike ( 34 ). GR ANT Plaintiff's Motion to File under Seal ( 44 ). DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Notice of Removal ( 50 ). Any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of this Report and R ecommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. No reply to any response shall be filed. If objections are not timely filed, then the parties rights to de novo review by the District Court may be deemed waived. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eric J Markovich on 9/22/2016. (SIB) *Modified document type on 9/23/2016 (SCH).
|
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 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.
