VOGT v. WETZEL et al
| STEVEN VOGT |
| JOHN WETZEL and JOHN/JANE DOE |
| 2:2017cv01407 |
| October 31, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| Fayette |
| Maureen P. Kelly |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
97
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 59 Motion to Compel Discovery; denying 68 Motion for Sanctions; denying 82 Motion for Sanctions; denying 96 in camera review and status update. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 8/12/22. (ndf)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER granting 63 Motion for Reconsideration re 62 Memorandum Order on 59 Motion to Compel related to the production of certain emails filed by Plaintiff STEVEN VOGT, and denying in part as moot Motion to Compel 59 as it pertains to records concerning the development of DOC mail policies. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 5/10/22. (ndf)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER denying 54 Motion Enforce a Subpoena or Issue Subpoena and Order Service by U.S. Marshal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 3/8/22. (ndf)
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER granting Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; adopting Report and Recommendations re 20 Report and Recommendations. The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this CASE CLOSED. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 7/12/18. (lck)
|
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 Western 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.
