Litschewski v. Dooley

Plaintiff: Richard Litschewski
Defendant: Robert Dooley
Case Number: 4:2011cv04105
Filed: July 25, 2011
Court: South Dakota District Court
Office: Southern Division Office
County: Aurora
Presiding Judge: Karen E. Schreier
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
July 24, 2012 74 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 37 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 40 Motion for Protective Order; denying as moot 42 Motion to Extend ; denying as moot 44 Motion to Compel; denying as moot 46 Motion for Discovery; denying as moot 47 Motion to Sever; denying as moot 48 Motion to Stay; denying as moot 49 Motion to Consolidate Cases; denying as moot 55 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by U. S. District Judge Roberto A. Lange on 7/24/12. (CMS)

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 South Dakota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Litschewski v. Dooley
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Richard Litschewski
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Robert Dooley
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.