Jones, Sr. v. Kraus et al
| Steven Bradley Jones, Sr. |
| Thomas G. Kraus, George Santini, Frankie Cordova, Hector Lozano, Hutson and Williamson |
| 1:2017cv01231 |
| May 19, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Denver Office |
| Arapahoe |
| Gordon P. Gallagher |
| Mandamus and Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1361 |
| 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
74
ORDER. The Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge 57 and 58 are ACCEPTED. Motion to Dismiss 41 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as recommended by the magistrate judge. Motion for Summary Judgment 42 is GRANTED. The req uest for appointment of counsel in Plaintiff's Objection to Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge and Request for Appointment of Civil Pro Bono Representation Pursuant to Local Rule 15(a) 61 is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff's fir st and third claims are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's second claim is dismissed without prejudice. Within 14 days after entry of judgment, defendants may have their costs by filing a Bill of Costs with the Clerk of the Court. This case is closed, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 3/8/18. (sgrim)
|
|
Filing
58
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE re 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Williamson, Hector Lozano by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 01/02/2018. The Court recommends that defendants Williamson and Lozano's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. (mdave, )
|
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.
