SHROYER BROS., INC. v. NICHOLS et al
SHROYER BROS., INC. |
TERRY WHITT BAILEY, BARBER CONTRACTING, INC., BRAD KING, JAMES LEE, DEBRA MALITZ, DOUG MARSHALL, CRAIG NICHOLS and AARON WOOD |
1:2016cv00735 |
April 1, 2016 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
Indianapolis Office |
Debra McVicker Lynch |
Jane Magnus-Stinson |
Civil Rights: Other |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 71 ORDER - The Court: DENIES Shroyer's 51 Application for Judgment by Default; DENIES Shroyer's 58 Motion to Strike Immaterial and Surplus Matter from Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; DENIES Shroyer's 66 Motion for Leave to Reply to Defendant's Response in Support of Dismissal; DENIES Shroyer's 69 Request for Oral Argument; and GRANTS Defendants' 54 Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Sh royer's § 1983 claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and its state law conversion and defamation claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Final judgment shall enter accordingly. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/28/2016. (GSO) |
Filing 45 ORDER - Barber Contracting's 30 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT, and the Clerk is DIRECTED TO TERMINATE Barber Contracting as a party in this matter. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/2/2016. (GSO) |
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.