PLESS v. WATKINS

PLESS v. WATKINS

Plaintiff:	HAROLD L. PLESS, SR.
Defendant:	GARY WATKINS
Case Number:	1:2012cv00094
Filed:	January 24, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Office:	NCMD Office
County:	Cabarrus
Presiding Judge:	UNASSIGNED
Presiding Judge:	L. PATRICK AULD
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
June 17, 2013	Filing 52 MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER signed by JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 6/17/2013, that the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 38 ), is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Countermotion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 47 ), is DENIED. Any other pending motions are DENIED as moot and this case is dismissed with prejudice. (Daniel, J)
August 21, 2012	Filing 24 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD signed on 8/21/2012. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion to AmendedPleading Local Rule 37.1(b)(4)(5) [sic]" (Docket Entry 19 ) is GRANTED i n that the Clerk shall send Plaintiff the forms and instructions for filing a Section 1983 action and, by September 21, 2012, Plaintiff shall return to the Clerk for filing the new complaint form in the following condition: 1) labeled at the t op as "Amended Complaint" with the case number for this case; 2) properly completed according to all instructions, including identification of all Defendants; and 3) with all claims and/or requests for relief against each properly-named Def endant clearly set out. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within seven days of the filing of the foregoing "Amended Complaint," counsel for Defendant Watkins shall file a Notice stating whether said counsel will represent the additional De fendant(s) named in the Amended Complaint and will accept service of process on behalf of said additional Defendant(s), which the Court then will effect via the CM/ECF system. IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendant Watkins's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket Entry 14 ) be denied without prejudice to submission of the same or similar arguments in connection with a dispositive motion at the conclusion of the discovery period. (Daniel, J)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 17, 2013

Filing 52 MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER signed by JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 6/17/2013, that the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 38 ), is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Countermotion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 47 ), is DENIED. Any other pending motions are DENIED as moot and this case is dismissed with prejudice. (Daniel, J)

August 21, 2012

Filing 24 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD signed on 8/21/2012. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion to AmendedPleading Local Rule 37.1(b)(4)(5) [sic]" (Docket Entry 19 ) is GRANTED i n that the Clerk shall send Plaintiff the forms and instructions for filing a Section 1983 action and, by September 21, 2012, Plaintiff shall return to the Clerk for filing the new complaint form in the following condition: 1) labeled at the t op as "Amended Complaint" with the case number for this case; 2) properly completed according to all instructions, including identification of all Defendants; and 3) with all claims and/or requests for relief against each properly-named Def endant clearly set out. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within seven days of the filing of the foregoing "Amended Complaint," counsel for Defendant Watkins shall file a Notice stating whether said counsel will represent the additional De fendant(s) named in the Amended Complaint and will accept service of process on behalf of said additional Defendant(s), which the Court then will effect via the CM/ECF system. IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendant Watkins's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket Entry 14 ) be denied without prejudice to submission of the same or similar arguments in connection with a dispositive motion at the conclusion of the discovery period. (Daniel, J)

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 North Carolina Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: PLESS v. WATKINS
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: HAROLD L. PLESS, SR.
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: GARY WATKINS
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?