WAGNER v. BURNS et al
| LONNIE WAGNER |
| CHRISTOPHER NELSON, ED B. PRITT, JESSIE UDHE, ROBERT BURNS, CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES, JOHN DOE-EYE and RICK WILLYARD |
| 1:2012cv01879 |
| December 27, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Sarah Evans Barker |
| Debra McVicker Lynch |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Medical Malpractice |
| Both |
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
41
ENTRY - Plaintiff's voluntary motion to dismiss [dkt. no. 39 ] is DENIED. The plaintiff shall have through February 14, 2014, in which to either 1) file an unconditional motion to dismiss, or 2) state that he will proceed with this action. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/21/2014. Copy Mailed. (JD)
|
|
Filing
8
ENTRY - Dismissing Insufficient Claims and Directing Further Proceedings; The defendants shall have through May 24, 2013, in which to investigate this affirmative defense and to report whether they intend to withdraw the defense, or file a di spositive motion to resolve the defense.If the defendants intend to file a dispositive motion to resolve the defense, they shall have through June 24, 2013, in which to do so. No partial final judgment shall issue as to the claims dismissed in this Entry. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 4/29/2013. Copy Mailed.(CKM)
|
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 Southern 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.
