Mata v. Oregon Health Authority et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|June 16, 2016
ORDER: Granting Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 111 . Therefore, Plaintiff's claim based on ORS 659A.199 is dismissed. Signed on 6/16/2016 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)
|November 17, 2015
OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration 88 is deined. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)
|August 31, 2015
ORDER: Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation 79 is Rejected. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 65 is Denied in Part and Granted in Part as follows: 1) DHS and Bevin Hansell are dismissed as defendants i n this action. 2) Plaintiff's state law claims for whistle blowing and retaliation pursuant to ORS §§ 659A.199, 659A.203, and 659A.230 against defendant OHA, and her 1st Amendment freedom of speech claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against individual defendants Kaufman and Wentz remain viable, and this case shall be set for trial after a new Scheduling Order has been agreed to by the parties or set by the Court. Signed on 8/31/2015 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)
|August 6, 2014
ORDER: Granting Motion to Dismiss 29 ; Adopting Findings and Recommendation 32 . Plaintiff's due process claims are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's claims against Goldberg are dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend the complaint to allege a section 1983 claim against Goldberg. Signed on 8/6/2014 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (plb)
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 Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?