Norman v. Roork et al
| Darren Norman |
| Doug Niendick, John Does, Albert Roork, Walter Dillinger and Tom Hanselmen |
| 1:2011cv00017 |
| February 28, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Batesville Office |
| Fulton |
| D. P. Marshall |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Both |
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
55
JUDGMENT dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff Norman's complaint. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 2/28/2014. (jak)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 32 Motion for Summary Judgment. Norman's individual-capacity claim against Deputy Hanselman, his individual-capacity claim against Officer Niendick, and his official-capacity claims against Officer Niendick and Chief Roork remain for trial. The claims against John Does 1-4 are dismissed without prejudice. The Court suspends the scheduling order. An amended scheduling order with reset dates for the unexpired pretrial ddls will issue. The Court respectfully asks the parties to consider consenting to trial before Magistrate Judge Deere in order to get this litigation resolved sooner than later. Any consents are due by 3/15/13 Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 2/28/13. (kpr)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER allowing Luther Sutter to bring his computer and cell phone into the courthouse for a deposition on 11/8/12 at 10:00 a.m.. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 11/8/12. (kpr)
|
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 Arkansas 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.
