Wallace v. Community Radiology, et al.
Plaintiff: |
Jacqueline Wallace |
Defendant: |
Community Radiology, Gary W. Wright, Stephen Raskin and Valery P. Sobczynski |
Case Number: |
1:2009cv00511 |
Filed: |
May 11, 2009 |
Court: |
US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
Office: |
Bluefield Office |
County: |
McDowell |
Presiding Judge: |
David A. Faber |
Presiding Judge: |
|
Nature of Suit: |
Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice |
Cause of Action: |
28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Medical Malpractice |
Jury Demanded By: |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed |
Document Text |
April 18, 2016 |
Filing
113
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting defendant Community Radiology's 99 MOTION for Summary Judgment and granting defendant Dr. Stephen Raskin's 101 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Because the court has determined that defendants are entit led to judgment in their favor on the grounds discussed herein, it has not reached the other arguments raised by Community Radiology and Dr. Raskin in support of their motions for summary judgment. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 4/18/2015. (cc: all counsel of record and any unrepresented party) (arb)
|
June 25, 2014 |
Filing
77
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 46 MOTION for Default Judgment. The parties are permitted, but not required, to file a memorandum, with exhibits if appropriate, regarding whether plaintiff's claims should be dismissed as time-barred as to Valery P. Sobzynski, M.D. Any submissions must be filed no later than 7/25/2014. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 6/25/2014. (cc: counsel of record and any unrepresented party) (arb)
|
September 30, 2011 |
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting Plaintiff's 13 MOTION for Enlargement of Time to effect service. Plaintiff has until 10/31/2011 to serve the remaining defendants. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 9/30/2011. (cc: counsel of record) (mjp)
|
October 7, 2009 |
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: plaintiff's objection to removal which the court has construed as a motion to remand 6 is DENIED. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 10/7/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (mjp)
|
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 West Virginia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?