Radford v. United States

Radford v. United States

Plaintiff:	Ricky Warren Radford
Defendant:	United States
Case Number:	4:2016cv00772
Filed:	June 1, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office:	St. Louis Office
County:	St. Louis - City
Presiding Judge:	John M. Bodenhausen
Nature of Suit:	Personal Injury- Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2671
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
September 21, 2016	Filing 19 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Joint Motion For Stay Pending The Outcome Of Plaintiffs Form 95 (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED. This matter is stayed until March 10, 2017, or until further order of this Court. IT IS FURTHE R ORDERED that the parties' Joint Motion To Continue Rule 16 Scheduling Conference (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. The Rule 16 Conference scheduled for September 27, 2016 is VACATED, and will be rescheduled upon further order of this Court.IT IS FURTHE R ORDERED that Defendants Motion To Dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 8) is DENIED, without prejudice to refiling after the stay in this matter is lifted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Complaint (EC F No. 10) is DENIED, without prejudice to refiling after the stay in this matter is lifted.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by March 10, 2017, the parties shall jointly file a motion to lift the stay in this matter, and concurrently provide the Court with an status update at that time. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 9/21/16. (ARL)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 21, 2016

Filing 19 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' Joint Motion For Stay Pending The Outcome Of Plaintiffs Form 95 (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED. This matter is stayed until March 10, 2017, or until further order of this Court. IT IS FURTHE R ORDERED that the parties' Joint Motion To Continue Rule 16 Scheduling Conference (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. The Rule 16 Conference scheduled for September 27, 2016 is VACATED, and will be rescheduled upon further order of this Court.IT IS FURTHE R ORDERED that Defendants Motion To Dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 8) is DENIED, without prejudice to refiling after the stay in this matter is lifted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Complaint (EC F No. 10) is DENIED, without prejudice to refiling after the stay in this matter is lifted.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by March 10, 2017, the parties shall jointly file a motion to lift the stay in this matter, and concurrently provide the Court with an status update at that time. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 9/21/16. (ARL)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Radford v. United States
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ricky Warren Radford
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: United States
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?