Doe v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees et al
John Doe |
University of South Florida Board of Trustees, Winston G. Jones and Jane Doe |
8:2015cv00682 |
March 25, 2015 |
US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
Tampa Office |
Hillsborough |
Elizabeth A. Jenkins |
James S. Moody |
Other Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 12 ORDER: The remaining claims in Plaintiff's Complaint are dismissed without prejudice per the Order at Dkt. #11. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 6/15/2015. (LN) |
Filing 11 ORDER: Defendants University of South Florida Board of Trustees and Winston G. Jones' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 9) is granted to the extent stated herein. Counts I and II of the complaint are dismissed without leave to amend. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint to amend Count IX only if Plaintiff can allege a Title IX claim in good faith in light of the case law discussed herein. Any amendment shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of this order. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by that time, the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims and they will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 5/29/2015. (LN) |
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 Florida Middle 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.