Neidinger v. Clifton
Plaintiff: William Phillip Neidinger
Defendant: David Clifton
Case Number: 3:2013cv00491
Filed: September 12, 2013
Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office: Reno Office
Presiding Judge: William G. Cobb
Presiding Judge: Miranda M. Du
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
November 20, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER accepting and adopting 3 Report and Recommendation. MOTION/APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis 1 is granted and this action is dismissed with prejudice. Clerk ordered to file complaint and close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/20/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
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 Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Neidinger v. Clifton
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: William Phillip Neidinger
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: David Clifton
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?