Govind v. Felker et al
Filing
69
ORDER GRANTING 49 Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Otis D. Wright, II on 06/17/11; DISMISSING Oberst, Fiegener, [Fiegner], Flaherty, Nuchols, [Nichols], Gamgury,[Gamburg], Runnels, Lamberton, Garrison, Harrison, Gorden,Holmes, Gower, Wagner, Kopeds, [Kopec], Jackson, Martinez, Coles, Bates,Hale, Micone, McDonald, Spangle, and Tasi and Ms. Armetta [Armitta]. (Michel, G)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
DANIEL H. GOVIND,
) No. 2:06 CV 02467 Consolidated with
)
)
2:08 CV-01183 ODW
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
ORDER
)
)
VEAL, et al
)
)
)
)
Defendants
)
__________________________
19
20
On April 20, 2011 Plaintiff filed his “Motion to Object and Opposition to
21
Defendant’s (sic) Attorney / Williams and Associates to Dismiss Plaintiff Civil
22
Right Claim under sect § 1983 Should Be Denied.” [61] In it, he “moves [the]
23
copurt to Discharge the following defendants from this civil proceeding:
24
Defendants Oberst, Fiegener, [Fiegner], Flaherty, Nuchols, [Nichols],
25
Gamgury,[Gamburg], Runnels, Lamberton, Garrison, Harrison, Gorden,
26
Holmes, Gower, Wagner, Koped’s, [Kopec], Jackson, Martinez, Coles, Bates,
27
Hale, Micone, McDonald, Spangle, and Tasi and Ms. Armetta [Armitta].”
28
///
1
On the same day, Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition. [59]
2
The names in bold do not appear on the docket as defendants. In any event,
3
the court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s motion of dismissal and the above
4
mentioned defendants are hereby DISMISSED from this action. With respect
5
to the defendants who do not appear on the docket, they too are dismissed
6
on motion of the plaintiff.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED: June 17, 2011
______________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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?
