Glover v. Corizon Medical Service et al
| A C Glover |
| Corizon Medical Service, David Pavlakovic, Clabo and Christian |
| 6:2015cv00651 |
| April 17, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama |
| Jasper Office |
| Marion |
| Abdul K Kallon |
| Harwell G Davis |
| 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
37
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 09/07/2017. (KBB)
|
|
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the 11 MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION to the extent that it calls for the dismissal of (1) Glovers claims against Corizon Health Services and Dr. Pavlakovic, (2) his claims regarding defendants failure to provide him with a heart monitor or physical therapy services, and (3) his claims that defendants alleged failure to provide him with adequate medical care was racially motivated. These claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDIC E. The Report and Recommendation is REJECTED to the extent that it calls for dismissal of Glovers claims regarding Clabo, Christian, and Kirks alleged failure to assist him by helping to prevent him from falling while getting in and out of the shower and bed. This matter is REFERRED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this Order. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 3/1/2017. (JLC)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Alabama Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- 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.
