Carolina v. Pafumi et al
| Tyrone Douglas Carolina |
| Mike Pafumi, Napp, Write and Vicki |
| 3:2012cv00163 |
| February 2, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Tolland |
| Vanessa L. Bryant |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
58
ORDER: The parties are directed to review the attached memorandum, which pertains to and is filed in accordance with the Court's Order denying 56 Motion for Reconsideration as substantively and procedurally deficient, see Dkt. 57. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 08/04/2017. (Lee, E.)
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER denying as moot 45 Motion for Hearing; denying 47 Motion to Reopen Summary Judgment; and granting 46 Motion for Leave to File Appeal. Plaintiff's appeal must be filed on or before 03/20/14. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 02/18/14. (Rock, K.)
|
|
Filing
39
ORDER granting 35 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. See attached memorandum of decision. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on April 17, 2013.(Butler, Ayanna)
|
|
Filing
7
PRISCS-INITIAL REVIEW ORDER, ( Discovery due by 10/9/2012, Dispositive Motions due by 11/9/2012), Answer updated for Napp to 5/21/2012; Mike Pafumi to 5/21/2012; Vicki to 5/21/2012; Write to 5/21/2012.. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 3/8/2012. (Payton, R.)
|
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 Connecticut 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.
