Carnes v. Day, et al
| Michael C. Carnes |
| Christopher H. Day and Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority |
| 5:2016cv00818 |
| September 22, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Western Division Office |
| WAKE |
| Louise Wood Flanagan |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Both |
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
41
ORDER - The court has been advised that the parties have settled all matters in controversy among them. Therefore, this matter is DISMISSED subject to the right of any party to file a motion to reopen the case should settlemen t not be consummated within 45 days hereof. The parties are directed to file their Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice on or before Friday, April 7, 2017. As there appears to be no further reason at this time to maintain the file as an open one for statistical purposes, this case is removed from the active docket. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 2/21/2017. (Baker, C.)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 21 Amended MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM IN PART - Defendant's partial motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's claim for negligent hiring, supervision and retention is allowed to proceed. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages against defendant Airport Authority is DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 12/22/2016. (Tripp, S.)
|
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.
