Olds v. Esslinger et al
| Brian Olds |
| Ray Esslinger, Terry Haase, City of Westminster, The, Connolly's Towing, Inc., Simon Mole, Michael A. Cox, Don Quick and State of Colorado |
| 1:2009cv01472 |
| June 24, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Denver Office |
| Arapahoe |
| Christine M. Arguello |
| Craig B. Shaffer |
| Plaintiff |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
39
ORDER AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED 38 Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer; granting 12 , and 16 Defendants Ray Esslingers and Michael Coxs Motion to Dismiss. In light of the dismissal of all counts in this action, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THIS CASE IS CLOSED. by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 3/4/2010.(erv, )
|
|
Filing
38
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE - Recommending that (1) Defendants Haase, City of Westminster, Connolly's Towing, Inc., Mole, Quick, the State of Colorado, and John Does 1 through 100 be dismissed without prejudice and that in l ight of the dismissal of these Defendants,Counts 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, and 23 be dismissed without prejudice; (2) Counts 1, 4, 5, 6, 16, 19, 20, and 21 against Defendants Esslinger and Cox be dismissed without prejudice; (3) As to the remaining Counts 2 and 3 against Defendant Esslinger, that # 12 "Defendant Esslinger's Motion to Dismiss" be GRANTED and Defendant Esslinger be dismissed from this civil action; (4) As to the remaining Counts 17 and 18 against Defenda nt Cox, that # 16 "Defendant Cox's Motion to Dismiss" be GRANTED and Defendant Cox be dismissed from this civil action; and (5) As no claims or Defendants remain in the case, this civil action be dismissed in its entirety by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 1/4/2010. (cbscd)
|
|
Filing
37
COURTROOM MINUTES - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Motion Hearing held on 12/15/2009. ORDERED:Defendant Esslinger's Motion to Dismiss, doc # 12 and Defendant Cox's Motion to Dismiss, doc # 16 are taken under advisement by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer. (Court Reporter FTR - Linda Kahoe) (cbscd)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Forgive Delayed Filing, doc # 26 , is GRANTED by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 9/30/2009.(cbscd)
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER: Defendant Cox' "Unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery and to Vacate All Pretrial Settings and Deadlines Pending Determination of Motion to Dismiss Based on Immunity" (filed September 24, 2009) 22 is GRANTED IN PART. The schedul ing conference set for October 16, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. (MountainTime) is CONVERTED to a Status Conference in Courtroom A-402, Fourth Floor, of the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado. Parties are not required to submit a proposed scheduling order, confer in accordance with Rule 26(f), or submit their individual confidential settlement statement(s) as set forth in the courts Order dated August 5, 2009 14 . Mr. Olds shall notify all parties who have not yet entered an appearance of the date and time of the status conference, and shall provide a copy of this Order to those parties by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 9/28/2009.(cbscd)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER setting Scheduling Conference for 10/16/2009 at 10:00 a.m. (Mountain Time)in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer. By Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 8/5/09. (cbssec)
|
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 Colorado 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.
