Alexander v. Rosen et al
| William Alexander |
| Gerald Rosen, Cheryl A Matthews, Michelle Endres, Suzanne Hollyer, David Hoffman, Lori Savin, Mary Kaye Neumann, Ilyssa Cimmino and M Belill |
| 2:2014cv12249 |
| June 6, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan |
| Detroit Office |
| Oakland |
| Sean F. Cox |
| Paul J. Komives |
| Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations |
| 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
48
OPINION and ORDER Granting 17 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and Dismissing Complaint with Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER Denying re 26 Objection filed by William Alexander [Motion for Reconsideration]. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER Dismissing Claims Against Judge Cheryl A Matthews and Judge Gerald Rosen. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing without prejudice state law claims, granting 2 Application to proceed in forma pauperis, ordering plaintiff to show case in writing why claims against Judge Rosen and Judge Mattews should not be dismissed based upon absolute judicial immunity, and denying 3 Motion for emergency suspension of Local Rules.Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (DPer)
|
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 Michigan 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.
