Melo et al v. State of Oregon et al
| Katherine Melo |
| Steven R. Fletcher and State of Oregon |
| 6:2015cv02177 |
| November 20, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Eugene (6) Office |
| Michael J. McShane |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
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
20
Order: Based on the issues presented in the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarification 17 of Order on Motion to Dismiss, 15 , the Court Vacates it's dismissal order 15 in part as to Plaintiff's Sixth Cl aim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) against Defendant Steven R. Fletcher, M.D. The Court finds plaintiff's Sixth Claim for NIED does not arise out of the nucleus of operative facts common to the claims over which this Court may properly exercise jurisdiction, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. Signed on 2/11/2016 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)
|
|
Filing
15
OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant, Dr. Fletcher's Motion to Dismiss 3 is granted. Plaintiff Melo's fourth, fifth and sixth claims against Dr. Fletcher are dismissed without prejudice. Melo is granted leave to refile in the proper venue following the resolution of her claims against the other defendants in this case. Signed on 1/20/2016 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)
|
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
- 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.
