WalderBray v. Balmaceda
| 1:2006cv04573 |
| June 14, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Kimba M. Wood |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
28
OPINION:#98168 Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against the New York City Police Department Precinct 33 and the John Doe officers are dismissed. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 10/15/09) (tro) Modified on 10/22/2009 (eef).
|
|
Filing
23
OPINION #97240: The City has moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against the City. For reasons further set forth in said Order, the motion is granted. Further, given that Plaintiff has not served the Amended Complaint on any of the "John Do e" defendants, and that the time in which to effect service pursuant to FRCP 4(m) has long expired, Plaintiff's claims against the John Doe defendants are also dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted leave to serve a secondAmended Complaint within 20 days. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/14/09) (db) Modified on 3/19/2009 (mro).
|
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 New York 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
| Search for this case: WalderBray v. Balmaceda | |
|---|---|
| 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.
