Holland v. The City of Jackson, Mississippi et al
| Perry Holland |
| Doe One, Does 2-5, The City of Jackson, Mississippi, Rebecca Coleman and Erick Smith |
| 3:2012cv00472 |
| July 9, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
| Jackson Office |
| Hinds |
| F. Keith Ball |
| Daniel P. Jordan |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
109
ORDER denying 98 Motion for Summary Judgment for the reasons set out in the order. Defendants' request for attorneys fees was not submitted in a separate motion as required by Uniform Local Rule 7(b)(C)(3), and is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on January 22, 2014. (SP)
|
|
Filing
69
ORDER granting 56 Motion to Dismiss for the reasons stated in the order. Holland's claims against Coleman in her individual capacity are dismissed without prejudice. The stay of this matter is lifted. The parties are instructed to contact the magistrate judge within two weeks of this order to set the case for a status conference. The magistrate judge may then consider entering a revised case management order, if necessary. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on August 7, 2013. (SP)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER denying 9 Motion to Remand for the reasons set forth in the order. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on September 18, 2012. (ddi)
|
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 Mississippi Southern 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.
