PORTER v. HOGUE et al
Plaintiff: ROGER L. PORTER
Defendant: HOGUE, ROOFNER, SCHILLINGS, CAMBELL and FINK
Case Number: 2:2012cv00101
Filed: January 30, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Office: Pittsburgh Office
County: Armstrong
Presiding Judge: Lisa Pupo Lenihan
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Civil Rights (Prison Condition)
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 18, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 102 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting in part and denying in part 72 MOTION for Summary Judgment. The motion is granted to the extent that Defendants Campbell and Roofner are dismissed for lack of personal involvement. The motion is denied in all other respects. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on March 18, 2015. (kcc)
October 25, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 50 ORDER granting 38 Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's due process claim is sua sponte dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on October 25, 2013. (kcc)
April 17, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 37 ORDER striking 30 Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' shall file a new Motion for Summary Judgment that complies with Local Civil Rule 56, on or before May 15, 2013. Plaintiff shall be allowed thirty (30) days from the date Defendants file their new Motion for Summary Judgment to file an opposition to the Motion which also complies with Local Civil Rule 56. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on April 17, 2013. (kcc)
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 Pennsylvania Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: PORTER v. HOGUE et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: ROGER L. PORTER
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 ]
Defendant: HOGUE
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 ]
Defendant: ROOFNER
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 ]
Defendant: SCHILLINGS
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 ]
Defendant: CAMBELL
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 ]
Defendant: FINK
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?