TAGGART v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
| KENNETH TAGGART |
| UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT |
| 2:2016cv04040 |
| July 27, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Bucks |
| GERALD J. PAPPERT |
| Other 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
41
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION [#29] IS GRANTED AND TAGGART'S CLAIM FOR FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. TAGGART'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [#31] IS DENIED. TAGGART'S MOTION TO STRIKE [#34] IS DENIED. TAGGART'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND/OR AMEND COMPLAINT [#36] IS DENIED; THIS CASE SHALL BE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD J. PAPPERT ON 5/9/17. 5/9/17 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)
|
|
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO.10) IS GRANTED IN PART; DEFENDANTS' MOTION IS DENIED WITH RESPECT TO COUNT 1; COUNTS 2-11 ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL A MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT (ECF NO.19) IS DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD J. PAPPERT ON 1/20/17. 1/20/17 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)
|
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.
