Young v. Aramark Food Service Provider et al
| Claude Young, III |
| Solano County Sheriff Department and Aramark Food Service Provider |
| 2:2011cv00505 |
| February 23, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Gregory G. Hollows |
| Garland E. Burrell |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
13
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/13/11 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 12/8/2011 ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations in full, DISMISSING Defendant Aramark; DISMISSING Plaintiff's due process claims against defendants Solano County and Solano County Sheriff's Department. (Michel, G)
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/17/2011 RECOMMENDING that dft Aramark be dismissed from this action ; and pltf's due process claims against dfts Solano County and the Solano County Sheri ff's Department be dismissed; Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due w/in 14 days; and ORDERING that service is appropriate for Solano County Sheriff Department and Solano County; the clerk to send pltf forms for service to be completed and returned w/in 30 days, along w/ the Notice of Submission.(Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 05/04/11 granting 2 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees shall be collected in accordance with the court 9;s order to the Sheriff of Solano County filed concurrently herwith. Plaintiff's due process claims against all defendants and Eighth Amendment claims against Aramark are dismissed for the reasons discussed above, with leave to file an amended complaint within 28 days from the date of service of this order. (Plummer, M) Modified on 5/4/2011 (Plummer, M).
|
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 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.
