Smith v. Powell
Plaintiff: William M. Smith
Defendant: Dave G. Powell
Case Number: 2:2014cv01725
Filed: October 30, 2014
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office: Pendleton (2) Office
Presiding Judge: Dennis J. Hubel
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 28, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 80 ORDER: The Court, therefore, ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman's Findings and Recommendation 68 and, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff's Motion 42 for Partial Summary Judgment, GRANTS Defendant's Motion 46 for Summary Judgment, and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 3/28/2016 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (gw)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Smith v. Powell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Dave G. Powell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: William M. Smith
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?