Uroza v. Salt Lake County et al
| Enrique Uroza |
| James Winder and Salt Lake County |
| 2:2011cv00713 |
| August 5, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Utah |
| Central Office |
| Salt Lake |
| Dale A. Kimball |
| Other 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
170
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 104 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ; denying 108 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim ; denying 108 Motion for Summary Judgment ; granting 115 Urozas Rule 56(d) Motion. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 9/10/2014. (jds)
|
|
Filing
110
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 71 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse on 20/20/14. (jlw)
|
|
Filing
46
MEMORANDUM DECISION granting in part and denying in part 35 Motion to Dismiss ; The Fifth Claim for Relief is dismissed against Defendants Napolitano, Morton, and Branch, but not against Defendant Mathis and the John Doe ICE office r who issued the Form I-247. The Fourth Claim for Relief is dismissed against Defendants Napolitano, Morton, and Branch, but not against Defendant Mathis and the John Doe ICE officer who issued the Form I-247. The Federal Defendants motion to dismiss is DENIED as to the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Claims for Relief. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 2/21/13. (jlw)
|
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 Utah 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.
