VANG v. ASHBY et al
| KENG VANG |
| LAUREN ASHBY, RYAN BARKLEY and SHANNON MCCLATTIE |
| 1:2018cv00565 |
| June 27, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| NCMD Office |
| Rowan |
| L. PATRICK AULD |
| WILLIAM L. OSTEEN |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
60
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 9/28/2020. The Motion (Docket Entry 44 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows: 1) Defendant McClattie shall re-file Docket Ent ry 43 in a redacted form consistent with this Order's conclusions concerning pages 10 and 11; 2) Defendant McClattie shall refile Docket Entry 43 -5 in a redacted form that includes only material relied upon in her summary judgment brief and that redacts information consistent with this Order's conclusions (to include redaction of the names of Plaintiff's minor children); and 3) The Clerk shall maintain under seal Docket Entries 43 -1, 43 -2, 43 -3, and 43 -4 in their current form. (Daniel, J)
|
|
Filing
55
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD signed on 7/17/2020. RECOMMENDED that Defendant McClattie's summary judgment motion (Docket Entry 42 ) be granted and that Plaintiff's summary judgment motion (Docket Entry 49 ) be denied. (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.
