Francis v. Marshall et al

Francis v. Marshall et al

Case Number:	7:2007cv00240
Filed:	December 5, 2007
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Office:	Pikeville Office
Presiding Judge:	Gregory F. Van Tatenhove
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
October 14, 2010	Filing 60 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Dfts motion for summary judgment, R. 50 , is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Motion is GRANTED as to Francis's due process claims, and DENIED as to Francis's state law wrongf ul discharge claim. (2) Francis's motion for partial summary judgment, R. 51 , is DENIED. (3) Francis's state law claim for wrongful discharge is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claim. (4) This matter shall be STRICKEN from Courts active docket. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 10/14/2010.(RCC)cc: COR
February 2, 2010	Filing 38 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Dfts motion for summary judgment 21 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Dfts motion w/ respect to wrongful discharge claim against Marshall in his individual capacity is DENIED. The remainder of dfts motion is GRANTED. Thus, the remainder of claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (2) claims against Floyd County Fiscal Court have been dismissed, the Floyd County Fiscal Court is TERMINATED as party to this litigation. (3) Franci s's cross-motion for partial summary judgment 27 is DENIED. (4) parties' joint motion to continue the pretrial conference 37 is GRANTED. Accordingly, the final pretrial conference set for 2/16/2010 is RE-SCHEDULED for March 9, 2010 at 4:00 p.m., in Pikeville, KY. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar.(TDA)cc: COR

Date Filed

Document Text

October 14, 2010

Filing 60 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Dfts motion for summary judgment, R. 50 , is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Motion is GRANTED as to Francis's due process claims, and DENIED as to Francis's state law wrongf ul discharge claim. (2) Francis's motion for partial summary judgment, R. 51 , is DENIED. (3) Francis's state law claim for wrongful discharge is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claim. (4) This matter shall be STRICKEN from Courts active docket. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 10/14/2010.(RCC)cc: COR

February 2, 2010

Filing 38 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Dfts motion for summary judgment 21 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Dfts motion w/ respect to wrongful discharge claim against Marshall in his individual capacity is DENIED. The remainder of dfts motion is GRANTED. Thus, the remainder of claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (2) claims against Floyd County Fiscal Court have been dismissed, the Floyd County Fiscal Court is TERMINATED as party to this litigation. (3) Franci s's cross-motion for partial summary judgment 27 is DENIED. (4) parties' joint motion to continue the pretrial conference 37 is GRANTED. Accordingly, the final pretrial conference set for 2/16/2010 is RE-SCHEDULED for March 9, 2010 at 4:00 p.m., in Pikeville, KY. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar.(TDA)cc: COR

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Francis v. Marshall et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| 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.

Why Is My Information Online?