Haverkamp v. Penn et al
Plaintiff: David Allen Haverkamp
Defendant: Joseph Penn and Lannette Linthicum
Case Number: 2:2017cv00018
Filed: January 13, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Office: Corpus Christi Office
County: Jefferson
Presiding Judge: B Janice Ellington
Presiding Judge: Hilda G Tagle
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 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
September 23, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 212 ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: denying 152 Joint MOTION to Stay , 201 Memorandum and Recommendations, denying 195 MOTION To Dismiss Defendants, denying 158 Joint MOTION to Dismiss 62 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc., Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6) (Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(mperez, 1)
September 18, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 210 ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 186 Memorandum and Recommendations. Therefore, the Court OVERRULES Haverkamps objections. Dkt. No. 197. After review of the filings and relevant law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety, Dkt. No. 186. The Court DENIES the motions to intervene, Dkt. Nos. 141, 156, 164.(Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(EdnitaPonce, 1)
May 13, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 154 ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 129 Memorandum and Recommendations. Accordingly, after reviewing the filings, record and relevant law the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety, and DISMISSES Dr. Joseph Penn as a party from this action. (Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(scavazos, 1)
April 2, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 123 ORDER entered: The Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the Memorandumand Recommendation 99 . After considering the objections, 102, 111, 112,114, 116, 118, reviewing the record and the applicable law the Court herebyDENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss 90 . (Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(scavazos, 1)
May 19, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 48 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE denying 24 Opposed MOTION to Change Venue to USDC SOUTHERN DISTRICT HOUSTON DIVISION. (Signed by Magistrate Judge B Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)
May 11, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 43 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL denying 31 Motion to Appoint.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)
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 Texas Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Haverkamp v. Penn et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: David Allen Haverkamp
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 ]
Defendant: Joseph Penn
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 ]
Defendant: Lannette Linthicum
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.


Why Is My Information Online?