Floyd-Gimon v. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences et al
| Donna Floyd-Gimon |
| University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, John Ed Anthony, Carl Johnson, Jane Rogers, Sam Hilburn, Mike Akin, Jim von Gremp, John Tyson, Ben Hyneman, David Pryor, Mark Waldrip, Mary Helen Forest, Charles White, R T Fendley and Richard Pierson |
| 4:2010cv00655 |
| June 15, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Little Rock Office |
| Pulaski |
| James M. Moody |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
72
JUDGMENT re 71 Order. Plaintiff's federal causes of action and claims under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's state law claim for defamation is dismissed without prejudice Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 3/16/12. (kpr)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER granting 20 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; granting 22 Motion to Compel; denying 26 Motion to Strike. The Court will remove this case from the trial docket the week of June 13, 2011. An amended scheduling order will be entered setting an amended ddl for the above discovery, dispositive motions and pretrial filings and disclosures. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 3/29/11. (kpr)
|
|
Filing
9
AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 1/25/11. (bkp)
|
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.
