Woods v. Marquardt et al
| LaDarren Woods |
| Robert Scott Marquardt, Robert L Marquardt, Lyle Parry, Carl Nink, Brad Livingston and David Driskell |
| 9:2016cv00105 |
| June 27, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Lufkin Office |
| Angelina |
| Keith F. Giblin |
| Michael H. Schneider |
| Civil Rights |
| 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
58
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The parties' Agreed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice 57 is GRANTED. This entire action, and all of the claims asserted therein, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 12/2/19. (ljw, )
|
|
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Defendant Livingston's Motion to Alter Judgment 21 is GRANTED. There is no just reason for delay of dismissal and the Court directs entry of judgment as to Defendant Livingston. It is ORDERED that Defendant Li vingston is hereby finally DISMISSED from this lawsuit and the action against him is terminated. Defendant Livingston's prior Motion to Sever and Enter a Final Judgment 15 is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 2/4/18. (ljw, )
|
|
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 5/24/17. (ljw, )
|
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 Texas 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.
