Bond v. Hughes et al
| William C. Bond |
| Johnny L. Hughes, Kevin Perkins, Rod J. Rosenstein and Unknown Named Maryland U.S. Judges |
| 1:2016cv02723 |
| July 29, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Maryland |
| Baltimore Office |
| Baltimore City |
| David A. Faber |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
29
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 26 Motion to Reopen Case and for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by William C. Bond; denying Plaintiffs request to vacate the courts Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment Order already filed; the Clerk is directed not to accept any further motions to vacate the courts opinion and order or to reopen this action. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 8/1/2017. (c/m 8/1/17 jnls, Deputy Clerk)
|
|
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 15 Motion of plaintiff to Stay and/or Toll Plaintiffs Opposition to the Defendants Forthcoming Response to the Complaint; granting 16 Motion of USA to Dismiss ; granting 16 Motion of USA to be substitut ed in place of individual Defendants as to the Federal Tort Claims Act ; denying 18 Motion of plaintiff for Discovery; granting 19 Consent Motion of defendants for an Extension of Time to Respond to Pending Motions. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 4/12/2017. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)
|
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 Maryland 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.
