Keshtgarpour v. Henry Ford Health System et al
| Mani Keshtgarpour [E-Filer] |
| Henry Ford Health System and David B. Lee |
| 4:2017cv12917 |
| September 6, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan |
| Flint Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Matthew F. Leitman |
| R. Steven Whalen |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 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
32
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 31 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's First Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 29 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
|
|
Filing
26
ORDER Denying (1) Plaintiff's 24 Motion for Reconsideration and (2) Plaintiff's 25 MOTION to Amend/Correct. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
|
|
Filing
22
ORDER (1) Overruling Plaintiff's 19 Objections to 17 Report and Recommendation Dated August 14, 2018, (2) Adopting the 17 Report and Recommendation and Its Recommended Disposition, (3) Granting Defendant's 8 and 10 Motion to Dismiss, and (4) Dismissing Action With Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER Denying 3 Request for Service by U.S. Marshal filed by Mani Keshtgarpour. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
|
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.
