Legal Opinion
Denny v. Hinton
District Court, M.D. North Carolina
Decided June 20, 1986No. C-85-767-SPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
HIRAM H. WARD, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff requests review of the Magistrate’s Order denying his motion to amend the complaint and substitute specific identifiable defendants for the previously named “John Does.”1 The Magistrate found that the limitations period had run as to the newly identified defendants and had not been tolled under N.C.G.S. § 1-166 by the filing of the “John Doe” complaint. He also found that the relation back provisions of Rule 15(c), Fed.R.Civ.P., were not available. Plaintiff does not contest the Magistrate’s interpretation of Rule 15(c) in accordance with Weisgal v.…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Wilson v. GarciaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Commissioner v. Estate of BoschSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Sims v. American Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1974
- Cynthia Ann Watson v. Unipress, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1984
- Burcl v. North Carolina Baptist Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Huggard v. Wake County Hospital System, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
- Huggard v. WAKE COUNTY HOSP. SYSTEM, INC.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991