Martin v. Engelman
| Derrick C Martin |
| Darrick Engelman |
| 1:2010cv00109 |
| April 13, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
| Fort Wayne Office |
| Allen |
| Roger B Cosbey |
| James T Moody |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
84
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 77 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Darrick Engelman, DENYING AS MOOT 73 MOTION in Limine by Defendant Darrick Engelman. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of defendant Darrick Engelman. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 10/22/2013. (lhc)
|
|
Filing
56
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 45 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Darrick Engelman; DENYING 50 RULE 56 MOTION to Strike 49 Response to Motion by Defendant Darrick Engelman. The only remaining claim in this case is by Plaintiff against Defendant for seizure of Plaintiff's vehicle in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court will set this case for trial under separate order. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 1/14/13. (cer)
|
|
Filing
38
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 34 MOTION to Amend 1 Pro Se Complaint by Plaintiff Derrick C Martin. In-Person Scheduling Conference set for 7/25/2011 at 10:00 AM in US District Court - Fort Wayne before Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 6/15/11. (cer)
|
|
Filing
25
OPINION AND ORDER re 11 Letter from Plaintiff Derrick C Martin requesting action be taken regarding Defendant's lack of response to Plaintiff's Complaint and requesting referral to a law firm (deemed by the Court to be a request for appointment of counsel). Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roger B Cosbey on 1/26/11. (cer). Modified on 1/26/2011. (cer)
|
|
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER re 1 PRO SE COMPLAINT against Darrick Engelman filed by Plaintiff Derrick C Martin. Plaintiff GRANTED leave to proceed against Defendant Darrick Engelman as outlined in Order. All other claims, including the claim for damages for mental and emotional distress, are DISMISSED pursuant to 28:1915(b). Defendant ORDERED to respond to Complaint as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. US Marhsals Service DIRECTED to effect service of process on Defendant. Clerk DIRECTED to ensure that a copy of this Order, the Complaint and Summons are served on Defendant. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 8/10/10. (cer). Modified on 8/10/2010 (cer)
|
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 Indiana Northern 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
| Search for this case: Martin v. Engelman | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Derrick C Martin | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Darrick Engelman | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
