Alexander v. Whetsel et al
| Nathan Dean Alexander |
| John Whetsel, Byron Collins, Oklahoma County Detention Center, Armark Food Service Inc, Oklahoma County Public Defender's Office and Bo Phillips |
| 5:2015cv00484 |
| May 5, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma |
| Oklahoma City Office |
| Osage |
| Joe Heaton |
| Suzanne Mitchell |
| 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
51
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 50 of Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones and dismisses plaintiff's claims against defendant Collins without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 10/17/2016. (cla)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 42 of Magistrate Judge Bernard M. Jones...the court grants the motions to dismiss filed by defendants Phillips and the Oklahoma County Public Defender's Office 30 and defendant Whetsel 36 ; the claim s against these defendants and against the Oklahoma Detention Center Staff Personnel and Armark Food Service, Inc. are dismissed for failure to state a claim...the court concludes the motion for appointed counsel should be considered in conjunction with plaintiff's response to the show cause order and refers that motion back to the magistrate judge. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 7/21/2016. (cla)
|
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 Oklahoma Western 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.
