Muhammed v. Office of Registration and Academic Records et al
| Sabina Muhammed |
| Office of Registration and Academic Records, Information Technology Department, University of Houston Police Department of University of Houston Main Campus and Office of Contract and Grant Administration |
| 4:2011cv00015 |
| January 4, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Texas |
| Houston Office |
| Harris |
| Lee H Rosenthal |
| Freedom of Information Act |
| 05 U.S.C. ยง 552 |
| 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
19
ORDER entered DENYING 14 MOTION for Reconsideration of 12 MOTION for Reconsideration of 11 Order, 13 Order on Motion for Reconsideration.(Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, )
|
|
Filing
15
ORDER entered: Sabrina Muhammed has filed a third motion to reconsider. (Docket Entry No. 14). She indicates that she has new evidence that requires reinstating the case. Ms. Muhammed has not, however, presented her newly discovered evidence for t he court to consider. She must submit an affidavit, under oath, describing her newly discovered evidence and explaining why it requires this court to permit her to proceed with this case as well as the case she filed previously in Judge Hoyts court, no later than Monday, July 25, 2011. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, )
|
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
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.
