Estep v. City of Somerset, Kentucky et al
Roger Estep |
City of Somerset, Kentucky, Somerset Police Department, Eddie Girdler and Doug Nelson |
6:2010cv00286 |
October 20, 2010 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
London Office |
Pulaski |
Amul R. Thapar |
Employment |
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 36 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to extend the time for discovery, R. 26 , is DENIED. In accordance with the Court's initial Scheduling Order, R. 14 , the parties shall complete all discovery by August 31, 2011 and the parties shall file dispositive motions no later than September 30, 2011. Motions terminated: 26 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Roger Estep filed by Roger Estep. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 8/24/2011.(RBB)cc: COR |
Filing 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1) GRANTING 10 MOTION for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings by City of Somerset, Kentucky, Eddie Girdler, Doug Nelson, Somerset Police Department. 2) All of Estep's claims in Count B and Count C are DISMISSED. Estep's claims in Count A (First Amendment retaliation) remain.. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 3/8/11.(SWA)cc: COR Modified on 3/8/2011 to correct typo (SWA). |
Filing 6 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Defendants' motion to dismiss 3 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth in this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 12/21/10.(SWA)cc: COR |
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 Kentucky Eastern 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.