Simmons v. Aramark
| Anthony W. Simmons |
| Aramark |
| 3:2016cv00120 |
| February 24, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky |
| Louisville Office |
| Oldham |
| Joseph H. McKinley |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
33
MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 9/22/2017: The Court will dismiss this action by separate order. cc: counsel, Plaintiff (pro se) (JBM)
|
|
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 11/14/2016 denying 15 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 14 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendants shall file an answer to Plaintiffs complaint on or before 11/28/2016. cc: Counsel, Plaintiff (pro se) (JBM)
|
|
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. On initial review of Plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the Court will allow Plaintiff's claims to proceed. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff s hall have 90 days from the date of this Order in which to conduct limited discovery for the purpose of identifying the unknown Aramark dietician Defendant(s) and to amend his complaint to name these Defendant(s) and request the Court to effect servic e upon them or show good cause for his failure to do so. Plaintiff is WARNED that his failure to comply with this Order could result in the dismissal of this action as to the unknown dietician Defendants. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendants Aramark and Elzy. (RR)
|
|
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. Upon initial screening, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the claims against ARAMARK are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. Plaintiff shall name as Defendants the individuals whom he alleges knew he needed a diabetic diet and refused to provide him with such. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendant (ERH)
|
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 Western 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: Simmons v. Aramark | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Anthony W. Simmons | |
| 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: Aramark | |
| 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.
