TAY v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION et al
| TAY |
| U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, STATE OF FLORIDA, SCHOOL BOARD OF BREVARD COUNTY FLORIDA, NEIL DASH, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC. and JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A. |
| 1:2014cv00468 |
| June 9, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| NCMD Office |
| Alamance |
| THOMAS D. SCHROEDER |
| JOE L. WEBSTER |
| Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 1962 |
| 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
75
ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN JR. on 02/27/2015, that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. 30 ) is ADOPTED. FURTHER that Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint (Doc. 8 ) is DENIED an d that Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 2 ) and any amended complaints are DISMISSED for being frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). FURTHER that because this case is being dismissed, all pending motions filed in this case, including but not limited to, the following motions, are DENIED AS MOOT: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (Doc. 16 ); (2) Defendant Microsoft Corporat ion's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17 ); (3) Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against Microsoft (Doc. 21 ); (4) Defendant School Board of Brevard County Florida's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 26 ); (5) Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Microsoft (Doc. 36); (6) Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Defendant School Board of Brevard County, Florida (Doc. 38 ); (7) Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Briefs for Partial Summar y Judgment pursuant to LR 56.1(d) against Microsoft and the School Board (Doc. 41 ); (8) Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Doc. 43 ); (9) Defendant Microsoft's Motion to Stay Deadlines (Doc. 47 ); (10) Plaintiff 9;s Request for Entry of Default against Defendant U.S. Department of Education (Doc. 51 ); (11) Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default against Defendant U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Doc. 52 ); (12) Plaintiff's Moti on for Entry of Default Judgment (Doc. 54 ); (13) Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Doc. 60 ); (14) Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Doc. 65 ); (15) Plaintiff's Second Motion for Pr eliminary Injunctive Relief (Doc. 67 ); and (16) Motion to Enjoin Case 1:14- CV-802 and its Evidentiary Attachments to this case (1:14-CV-468) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11(B)(3) and Amend Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 15 (Doc. 69). (Abby Taylor)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 08/21/2014 as set out herein. RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Motion to amend the Complaint (Docket Entry 8 ) be DENIED, and Plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED for being frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 191S(e)(2)(B). In light of the undersigned's recommendation for dismissal, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Microsoft Corporation's consent motion for an extension of time to answer (Docket Entry 9 ) is DENIED as MOOT.(Taylor, Abby)
|
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 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.
