EUFROSINA v. GATES et al
| DIACONU EUFROSINA |
| ROBERT GATES, STEVE JOHNSTON, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE and U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| 2:2008cv03633 |
| August 4, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Federal Employer's Liability Office |
| Philadelphia |
| MICHAEL M. BAYLSON |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 45:51 Railways: Fed. Employer's Liability Act |
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
39
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. #32) IS GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PLAINTIFF; AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. #31) IS DENIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THE CASE.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON ON 11/24/2009. 11/25/2009 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE, E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(tomg, )
|
|
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS, PLAINTIFF MUST RE-FILE HER ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM REGARDING THE CANCER WITH FORT DIX AS OUTLINED HEREIN. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE (DOC. 18) IS DENIED AS MOOT. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOC. 19) IS DENIED IN THAT PLAINTIFF IS STILL PROCEEDING BEFORE AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY AND SHE HAS NOT MADE ANY CLAIM OF POVERTY. THE COURT ENCOURAGES PLAINTIFF TO RETAIN COUNSEL. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON ON 3/5/09. 3/5/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE BY CHAMBERS, E-MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS.(lisad, )
|
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 Pennsylvania Eastern 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.
