Batista v. United States of America
| Luis M. Batista |
| United States of America and Noel Jensen |
| 0:2016cv00794 |
| March 28, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Patrick J. Schiltz |
| David T. Schultz |
| 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
158
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court SUSTAINS IN PART AND OVERRULES IN PART the government's objection 157 and ADOPTS the R&R 155 , except as d escribed in this order. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the government's motion to dismiss 131 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. The government's motion to dismiss plaintiff's Ohio-based medical malpractice claims is GRANTED insofar as those claims (a) arise from acts or omissions occurring on or after April 26, 2015, or (b) seek injunctive relief. Those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 2. The government's motion is DENIED in all other respects. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 7/16/2018. (CLG) cc:Luis M. Batista. Modified text on 7/16/2018 (MMG).
|
|
Filing
113
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on July 26, 2017. (CLG) cc: Plaintiff. Modified on 7/26/2017 (lmb).
|
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 Minnesota 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.
