Portee v. United States Department of Agriculture et al
| Andre Javion Portee |
| United States Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights and Thomas J. Vilsack |
| 2:2015cv13928 |
| August 10, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
| Charleston Office |
| Fayette |
| Thomas E. Johnston |
| Dwane L. Tinsley |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
44
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting and incorporating the 42 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; denying 32 Motion by Andre Javion Portee for Summary Judgment; granting the defendants' 34 Motion for Summary Judgment; and this action is dismissed and stricken from the docket of the court. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 8/31/2018. (cc :counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (taq)
|
|
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting 26 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; denying Plaintiff's 19 MOTION for Entry of Default Judgment Pursuant to Rule 55(b)(1), FRCivP. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 5/24/2017. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmr)
|
|
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; and denying plaintiff's 5 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 9/15/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (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.
