Crum v. Canopius US Insurance Company
| David Timothy Crum |
| Canopius US Insurance Company |
| Canopius US Insurance Company |
| David Timothy Crum |
| 2:2014cv24861 |
| August 19, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
| Charleston Office |
| Logan |
| John T. Copenhaver |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 17 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; granting the defendant's 15 Motion to Dismiss; and directing that this action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 8/11/2016. (cc: plaintiff; counsel of record; United States Magistrate Judge) (taq)
|
|
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge; granting the 8 Motion for default judgment on the counterclaim, with defendants having no obligation to provide coverage under the ap plicable policy; as plaintiff has not appeared for purposes of prosecuting the complaint or defending the counterclaim, directing that this action is referred anew to the magistrate judge for such further proceedings, including a hearing to show cause, that may be necessary to adjudicate the remainder of this action. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 8/12/2015. (cc: plaintiff, pro se; counsel of record; United States Magistrate Judge) (taq)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- 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.
