Gomez v. Tamez
Daniel Gomez |
Felix Tamez |
1:2011cv00187 |
September 15, 2011 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Texas |
Brownsville Office |
Cameron |
Felix Recio |
Hilda G Tagle |
Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 80 OPINION AND ORDER denying 76 MOTION Issue Subpoenas. Plaintiff Daniel Gomez's "Motion to Subpoena" (DE 76) is DENIED and his instant lawsuit is DISMISSED, with prejudice.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Felix Recio) Parties notified.(bcampos, 1) Modified on 10/21/2013 (bcampos, 1). |
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 Southern 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
Search for this case: Gomez v. Tamez | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Respondent: Felix Tamez | |
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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Petitioner: Daniel Gomez | |
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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.