Ross v. Conner et al
| Terrence Javarr Ross |
| Randy Conner, Derwin Briscoe, Officer Mason, Officer Piercy, Duane D. Terrell and Captian McLaughlin |
| 1:2014cv00098 |
| April 21, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina |
| Asheville Office |
| Cleveland |
| Frank D. Whitney |
| Civil Rights |
| Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
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
130
ORDER revising 128 Order and 129 Order deadlines as noted. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 1/3/2017. (kby)
|
|
Filing
128
ORDER Regarding Trial set for Monday, March 13, 2017. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 9/30/2016. (khm)
|
|
Filing
127
ORDER that on the Court's own motion, Jury Trial is set for 3/13/2017 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2-2, 401 W Trade St, Charlotte, NC 28202 before Senior Judge Graham Mullen. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 8/23/2016. (kby)
|
|
Filing
124
ORDER that attorney Joshua Davis Lanning is appointed to serve as counsel for Terrence Javarr Ross in this case. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 4/13/2016. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(kby)
|
|
Filing
118
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Deft Conner's 101 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part Defts Piercy's and Mason's 99 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Pltf's 107 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Pltf's 108 Motion to Amend Summary Judgment upon Receipt of Discovery Material. This Court finds that Pltf should have the assistance of counsel in preparing for trial. Within 20 days of this Order, Pltf shall notify the Court as to whether he intends to obtain counsel on his own, or whether he seeks appointment of counsel from the Court. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 10/16/15. (Pro se litigant served w/copy of this Order by US Mail.)(ejb) Modified text on 10/16/2015 (ejb). NEF Regenerated.
|
|
Filing
100
ORDER denying [74, 78, 84, 85] Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Discovery. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 08/21/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh)
|
|
Filing
95
ORDER denying 82 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, denying 87 Motion to Compel and Motion in Opposition to Defendants' Motion Allowing Prison Deposition and denying 92 Motion Requesting Extension of Time for Discovery. See Order for further instruction. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 7/17/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(klb)
|
|
Filing
93
ORDER denying as moot 83 Motion for Discovery to Take Prison Depositions; granting 91 Motion for Discovery to Take Prison Depositions, and Defendants shall be allowed to take Plaintiff's deposition at Mountain View Correctional Institution in Spruce Pine, North Carolina.. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 7/14/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(khm)
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER denying 51 Motion to Amend/Correct with permission to refile motion for leave to amend; granting 53 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 58 , 59 , 60 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 68 , 69 Motions to Compel. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 06/04/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (klb)
|
|
Filing
57
ORDER granting nunc pro tunc the 55 Motion for enlargement of time. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 05/13/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(klb)
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER denying 47 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 48 Motion to Compel. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 04/13/2015. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(klb)
|
|
Filing
44
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 43 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 3/3/15. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (Copy of this Order also mailed to Defendants Piercy and Mason, and Sean F. Perrin, Attorney for Cleveland County as directed by the Court.)(khm)
|
|
Filing
38
ORDER denying Pltf's 27 Motion for Order to Show Cause, 37 Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions, and 30 Motion to Appoint Counsel; U.S. Marshal(USM) shall use all reasonable efforts to locate and obtain serv ice on Defts Piercy and Mason. If USM is unable to locate and obtain service on these Defts, USM shall inform the Court of efforts made in attempting to locate these Defts. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 1/26/15. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (ejb)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER denying 18 Motion Requesting Federal Criminal Procedure Rules Concerning 1983 Civil Complaint and Motion Requesting Proof of Service. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 12/02/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (klb)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER re 16 Motion Requesting Proof of Service. Pla's Motion is GRANTED to the extent that the docket in this action will show when the U.S. Marshal has returned the summonses are either executed or unexecuted after attempting service on Defendants. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 11/24/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (klb)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER: 1) Plas 1 Complaint survives initial review as to Dfts Conner, Mason, and Piercy. Remaining Dfts are dismissed. 2. The 3 and 9 MOTION to Appoint Counsel are DENIED. 3) The 4 and 10 MOTION for Order to Show Cause/MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, are DENIED. 4) Clerk shall send Pla summons forms to fill out so that service may be made on Dfts Conner, Mason, and Piercy. Once the Court receives the summons, the USM shall effectuate service. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 10/15/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (klb)
|
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
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.
