Kershaw v. Robinson et al
Plaintiff: |
Vito Joseph Kershaw |
Defendant: |
J. Grayson Robinson, County of Arapahoe and State of Colorado |
Case Number: |
1:2009cv01872 |
Filed: |
August 7, 2009 |
Court: |
US District Court for the District of Colorado |
Office: |
Denver Office |
County: |
Arapahoe |
Presiding Judge: |
Wiley Y. Daniel |
Presiding Judge: |
Craig B. Shaffer |
Nature of Suit: |
None |
Cause of Action: |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
Jury Demanded By: |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed |
Document Text |
January 20, 2011 |
Filing
87
ORDER that the Order and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 83 is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED; the Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiff filed August 4, 2010 72 is DENIED; It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Robinsons Motion for Summary Judgment filed July 12, 2010 60 is GRANTED; it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Objection to the Recommendation 84 is OVERRULED, by Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 1/20/2011.(erv, )
|
October 12, 2010 |
Filing
83
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's filing doc # 76 is STRICKEN as duplicative and his filing doc # 75 , pp. 1-55 is treated as his Response. IT IS RECOMMENDED that: (1) Defendant Robinso n's Motion for Summary Judgment, doc # 60 be GRANTED; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, doc # 69 be DENIED; and (3) Summary judgment enter in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on the Complaint by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 10/12/2010. (cbscd)
|
July 16, 2010 |
Filing
64
COURTROOM MINUTES - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: A Motion Hearing was held on 7/16/2010. ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion for Order for Trial Date and Ms. Meng to Comply With Discovery Process # 56 is DENIED AS MOOT; Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 57 Declaratory Judgment # 63 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Plaintiff shall file a Response to Defendant Robinson's Motion for Summary Judgment # 60 on or before AUGUST 13, 2010; Plaintiff shall file a Motion for Judgment on or before AUGUST 13, 2010. By Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer. (Court Reporter FTR - Linda Kahoe) (cbscd)
|
October 21, 2009 |
Filing
25
ORDER denying Mr. Kershaw's letter, docketed as a 23 Motion for Leave to receive copy of complaint indigently, by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 10/21/09.(gmssl, )
|
October 14, 2009 |
Filing
19
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Motion for Order 14 is GRANTED. (Copies of doc # 3 and # 10 were mailed to Plaintiff this date by cbscd.) Motion for Discovery 16 is DENIED as premature. IT IS RECOMMENDED that Mr. Kershaw's "Motion to Add A.C. Board of Commission to Complaint [sic]" (doc. # 15 ) (filed October 7, 2009) be DENIED asunnecessary and futile by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 10/14/2009.(cbscd)
|
September 15, 2009 |
Filing
10
ORDER to Dismiss in Part and to Draw Case to A District Judge and to a Magistrate Judge. Defendant Arapahoe County is dismissed as a party to this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 A(b)(1). Defendant State of Colorado is dismissed as a party to this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 A(b)(2). This case shall be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge. By Judge Zita L. Weinshienk on 09/14/2009. (sah, )
|
August 7, 2009 |
Filing
2
ORDER Directing Clerk to Commence Civil Action and Directing Plaintiff to Cure Deficiency. Plaintiff shall have 30 days to file a certified copy of prisoner's trust fund statement, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 8/6/09. (jak, )
|
Access additional case information on PACER
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
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.
Why Is My Information Online?