McCall v. Tucker et al
| Jamie Shawn McCall |
| Matthew Tucker, Tommy Balentine, Larry Lute and Mitchell |
| 4:2014cv00212 |
| April 7, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Little Rock Office |
| Faulkner |
| J. Thomas Ray |
| Susan Webber Wright |
| 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
70
JUDGMENT: Consistent with the 69 Order entered on this day, Mr. McCall's claims against Defendants Matthew Tucker and James Mitchell are DISMISSED. It is certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 8/14/2015. (ks)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER directing Plaintiff to file on or before 2/27/2015, a Response to 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Matthew Tucker, James Mitchell and a separate Statement of Disputed Facts that comply with the instructions in this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 01/28/2015. (kcs)
|
|
Filing
36
ORDER granting, as specified in this Order 31 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; granting in part, as specified in this Order 32 Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 12/02/2014. (kcs)
|
|
Filing
20
INITIAL ORDER for pro se prisoners. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 08/14/2014. (kcs)
|
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 Arkansas Eastern 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.
