BAGWELL v. DIMON et al
| DONALD RICHARD: BAGWELL |
| JAMIE DIMON, MARIANNE A. LAKE, GRADY I. INGLE, ELIZABETH B. ELLS, JONATHAN BLAKE DAVIS, JAMES C. STANFORD, COUNTY OF, ORANGE, STATE OF, NORTH CAROLINA, BARRY JACOBS, EARL MCKEE, ALICE M. GORDON, BERNADETTE PELISSIER, RENEE PRICE, PENNY RICH, BRIAN CHARLES HIATT, HEATHER HOVANEC FORD, DAVID R. FORD, JACKSON D. WICKER, NOAH H. HUFFSTETLER, III, ROE(S) NO. 1 THROUGH 20, JANE DOES NO. 1 THROUGH NO. 49, JOHN DOES NO. 1 THROUGH NO. 49, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION |
| 1:2014cv00495 |
| June 13, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| NCMD Office |
| Orange |
| L. PATRICK AULD |
| WILLIAM L. OSTEEN |
| 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
132
ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 12/22/2015, adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (ECF No. 117 ) and Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No 99 ) is DENIED. FURTHER that, in light of the Judgment entered by this Court against Plaintiff (ECF No. 98 ) dismissing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Plaintiff's motions for partial summary judgment (ECF Nos. 120 , 122 , 124 , 126 , 128 ) are DENIED as moot. (Daniel, J)
|
|
Filing
117
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD signed on 11/17/2015, RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Docket Entry 99 ) be denied. (Daniel, J)
|
|
Filing
97
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 5/18/2015, that Chase's Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike Plaintiff['s] Second Amended Complaint or Responsive Objections to Amendment under Rule 15(a) (ECF No. 38 ) is GRANTE D. The Motions to Dismiss filed by Chase, the Chase Attorneys, and the Trustee Defendants (ECF Nos. 36 , 40 , 31 ) are GRANTED. The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of action as to these Defendants and, thus, such causes of action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law causes of action asserted against the Orange County Defendants and State Defendants, and such causes of action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, rendering their Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 34 , 47 ) DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiff's five Motions for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 65 , 67 , [ 69], 71 , 73 ) are DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiff's Motions for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply (ECF Nos. 87 , 90 , 91 ) are DENIED AS MOOT. As no cause of action remains, the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8 ) is <>DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THE CASE. A judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order.(Daniel, J)
|
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.
