Dixon et al v. Prudential Prime Properties et al
| Kelvin J. Dixon and Stephanie Dixon |
| Prudential Prime Properties, Jody Tingen, Pistol Tingen, Jeff Mathis and Danny Harrington |
| 4:2016cv00233 |
| August 22, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Eastern Division Office |
| PITT |
| James C. Dever |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 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
44
JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the court GRANTS plaintiffs' first motion to amend [D.E. 7] to the extent it supplements the amended complaint by adding an exhibit, DENIES plaintiffs' second motion to amend [D.E. 41], GR ANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART defendants Jody Tingen, Pistol Tingen, and Prudential Prime Properties' motion to dismiss [D.E. 12], GRANTS defendants Danny Harrington and Jeff Mathis Home Inspection Service's motions to dismiss [D.E. 21, 3 2], DISMISSES plaintiffs' federal claims, DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state-law claims, and DENIES as moot defendant Danny Harrington's motion for more definite statement [D.E. 23]. Signed by Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court on 4/20/2017. (Briggeman, N.)
|
|
Filing
39
ORDER denying 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 2/7/2017. Sent to Kelvin J. Dixon and Stephanie Dixon P.O. Box 794 Ayden, NC 28513 via United States Mail. (Briggeman, N.)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- 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.
