CLEMMONS v. GUILFORD TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE et al
| BAILEY CLEMMONS |
| GUILFORD TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE and QUENTIN JOHNSON |
| 1:2016cv00482 |
| May 17, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| NCMD Office |
| Durham |
| L. PATRICK AULD |
| THOMAS D. SCHROEDER |
| 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
47
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 07/21/2017, that Clemmons's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 30 ) is DENIED, and her motion to strike (Doc. 38 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' mo tion for summary judgment (Doc. 34 ) is GRANTED with respect to Clemmons's federal claims, which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and otherwise DENIED as to Clemmons's remaining State-law claims, which are REMANDED to the Superior Court of North Carolina for Durham County for further consideration. The court expresses no opinion whether Clemmons's State-law claims are barred in whole or in part as a result of this court's disposition of her federal claims. (Garland, Leah)
|
|
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 10/17/2016; that the Remand Motion (Docket Entry 13 ) and the Amended Remand Motion (Docket Entry 19 ) are both DENIED. (Garland, Leah)
|
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.
