Wood, Dr. et al v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation et al
| William Wood, Dr., Carolyn Rosen-Wood and Green Line Advisory Group for Medford |
| Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Richard A. Davey, Federal Transit Administration, Region I and Mary Beth Mello |
| 1:2013cv10115 |
| January 18, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| Middlesex |
| Judith G. Dein |
| Environmental Matters |
| 33 U.S.C. ยง 1365 Environmental Matters |
| None |
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
26
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. (1) The 19 motion to dismiss by defendants Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Richard Davey is GRANTED, and all claims against those defendants are DISMISSED; (2) all claims by p laintiff Green Line Advisory Group for Medford will be dismissed within 14 days of the date of this order unless counsel for that organization has entered an appearance on its behalf prior to that time; and (3) this matter shall be dismissed in its entirety for lack of standing unless plaintiffs show cause in writing, within 21 days of the date of this order, why such dismissal is appropriate. (Cicolini, Pietro)
|
|
Filing
18
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered re pro se appearance of plaintiff Green Line Advisory Group of Medford. (Cicolini, Pietro)
|
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 Massachusetts 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.
