Azeez v. Keller et al
5:2006cv00106 |
February 13, 2006 |
US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
Beckley Office |
Thomas E. Johnston |
R. Clarke VanDervort |
Civil Rights: Other |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 222 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: that the 187 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Defendants Kristen Keller, Lawrence Frail, Bruce Lazenby, Cedric Robertson and David Cook be Granted; denying Plaintiff's 129 and 199 MOTIONS for Partial Summary Judgment. The Court further ORDERS that all pending motions in this matter be TERMINATED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 8/6/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (cds) |
Filing 156 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: that the Magistrate Judge's 151 Proposed Findings and Recommendations be Adopted; the Court Orders that the 51 Motion to Dismiss on behalf of Francis M. Curnutte, III be Granted; the Court further Orders that the 39 Motion to Dismiss on behalf of David H. Cook, Kristen L. Keller, Janice B. Davis, Bruce K. Lazenby, Lawrence Frail, Cedric Robertson, Billy Cole be Granted In Part and Denied In Part. The Court Orders Plaintiff's Complaint is dism issed as to Defendants Cole and Davis. However, Plaintiff is entitled to proceed on his claim that Defendants Keller, Lazenby and Frail violated his Fourteenth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty as a result of their fabrication of evidenc e or directing Defendants Robertson and Cook to present false testimony while acting in an investiative capacity; Further Plaintiff is entitled to proceed on his claim that Defendants Robertson and Cook violated his Fourteenth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty as a result of their fabrication of evidence while acting in an investigative capacity, etc. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 4/6/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (cds) |
Filing 143 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: denying Plaintiff's 141 MOTION to Recuse Judge Irene Berger. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 10/11/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr) |
Filing 137 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings herein, the Court does hereby ORDER that the Magistrate Judge's 135 Proposed Findings and Recommendation be ADOPTED. The Court ORDERS that Defendant Hutchison's 26 Motion to Dismiss and 124 Renewed Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/8/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (mls) |
Filing 107 ORDER: overruling Plaintiff's 104 Objections to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort's 101 Order of April 1, 2010; affirming the 101 Order of April 1, 2010. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 4/22/2010. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr) |
Filing 101 ORDER denying Plaintiff's 90 MOTION for an Order of Expungement of Criminal Records; granting Defendants Cole, Cook, Davis, Lawrence Frail, Keller, Lazenby, and Robertson's 91 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for an Order of Exp ungement of Criminal Records; denying as moot Plaintiff's 100 MOTION for an Expedited Ruling on Motion for Expungement of Criminal Records. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort on 4/1/2010. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr) |
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
Search for this case: Azeez v. Keller et al | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.