KNIGHT v. MURPHY, et al
Plaintiff: MELVIN KNIGHT
Defendant: FLOYD MURPHY, STEVEN CMAR and JOHN R. WALTON
Case Number: 2:2012cv00984
Filed: July 13, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Office: Pittsburgh Office
County: Westmoreland
Presiding Judge: Lisa Pupo Lenihan
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
January 19, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 142 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 137 plaintiff's motion for Extension of Time to File Objections - as more fully set forth in the Memorandum Order. Signed by Judge David S. Cercone on 1/19/16. (mwm)
December 17, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 138 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 116 and 120 Motions for Summary Judgment and adopting 132 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lenihan as the opinion of the Court. The Clerk shall mark this case closed. Signed by Judge David S. Cercone on 12/17/15. (njt)
March 28, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 69 MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 47 Motion to Dismiss. Motion granted as to Count XVIII against Nurse Harr and denied as to Count XIX against Nurse Kincaid. Further granting in part and denying in part 50 Motion to Dismiss . Motion granted as to Counts I and XV (access to courts), Count XVI (excessive force), Counts II and IV (failure to intervene), Counts V, X, XI, and XIV (retaliation), Counts III and XVII (due process), Count XX (failure to train subordinates), Co unts XXI and XXII (conspiracy), and Count XXIII (preclusion to exhaust administrative remedies) and denied as to Counts VI, VIII, and XII (excessive force), Counts VII, IX, and XIII (failure to intervene) and Count XIX (deliberate indifference). Fu rther denied without prejudice as to Count XXIV (mental and emotional injury). Further defendant J. WILLIAMS dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Further remanding case back to Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings. 66 Report and Recommendation of Judge Lenihan adopted as the opinion of the Court. Signed by Judge David S. Cercone on 3/28/14. (njt)
August 21, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER denying 6 Motion for TRO. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on August 21, 2012.(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: KNIGHT v. MURPHY, 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: MELVIN KNIGHT
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: FLOYD MURPHY
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: STEVEN CMAR
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: JOHN R. WALTON
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?