Holmes v. City of Omaha et al
| 8:2005cv00369 |
| July 29, 2005 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| 8 Omaha Office |
| Richard G. Kopf |
| David L. Piester |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Defendant |
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
11
ORDER - The unopposed oral motion of defendants City of Omaha, Omaha Police Department, Don Carey, Derek Mois, Rosemary Burdess, and Thomas Loftus, for an extension of time to file the report of parties' planning conference is granted. The parties are hereby given until September 19, 2005 to file their Rule 26(f) meeting report. Signed by Magistrate Judge David L. Piester on 8/4/2005. (GJG, )
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge David L. Piester on 8/2/2005 that counsel and unrepresented parties shall meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and, by August 19, 2005, file their Report of Parties' Planning Conference. (BMH)
|
|
Filing
3
GENERL ORDER 2004-04 - regarding the assignment of Omaha civil cases to Judge Kopf. Signed by Judge Richard G. Kopf on 5/25/2004. (MKR, )
|
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 Nebraska 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
| Search for this case: Holmes v. City of Omaha et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
