S.O. v. Hinds County School District et al
| S.O. |
| Hinds County School District, Unnamed Hinds County School District Employee, Ben Lundy, Tommy Brumfield, Michelle Ray, Shannon Rankin, Byram Police Department and Ricardo Montez Kincaid |
| 3:2017cv00383 |
| May 19, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
| Northern (Jackson) Office |
| Hinds |
| F. Keith Ball |
| Daniel P. Jordan |
| Civil Rights: Education |
| 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
70
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 57 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 59 Motion to Dismiss for the reasons set out in the Order. Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on July 3, 2018. (SP)
|
|
Filing
53
ORDER denying 50 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 10 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part 18 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part 20 Motion to Dismiss as set out in the Order. The Court orders that the stay entered on August 28, 2017, by Unite d States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball be lifted, and proceedings may continue consistent with these holdings. The parties are directed to contact Judge Ball's chambers within ten days of the entry of this Order to set the case for a case-management conference. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on October 18, 2017.(SP)
|
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.
