Michael N. Okafor v. State of California Department of Conservation
| Michael N Okafor |
| Does and State of California Department of Conservation |
| 8:2015cv01626 |
| October 9, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Cormac J. Carney |
| Jay C. Gandhi |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
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
58
JUDGMENT by Judge Cormac J. Carney. The arguments having been presented and fully considered, and in accordance with the Court's January 23, 2018, Order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant State of California Department of Conserva tion on Plaintiff Michael Okafor's operative First Amended Complaint, It is therefore now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that judgment is entered in this action as follows: 1. Plaintiff Michael Okafor shall recover nothing from Defendant State of California Department of Conservation on Plaintiff Michael Okafor's operative First Amended Complaint, and his claims are dismissed on their merits and with prejudice; 2. Defendant State of California Department of Conservation shall have j udgment in its favor on Plaintiff Michael Okafor's operative First Amended Complaint; and 3. Defendant shall recover from Plaintiff Michael Okafor costs of suit pursuant to a bill of costs filed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1920. IT IS SO ORDERED. (dro)
|
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 California Central 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.
