Buff v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al
Plaintiff: David Buff
Defendant: South Carolina Department of Corrections and Bryan P Stirling
Case Number: 5:2014cv03022
Filed: July 29, 2014
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Orangeburg Office
County: Dorchester
Presiding Judge: Kaymani D West
Presiding Judge: Terry L Wooten
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
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 31, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 99 ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 89 ), and Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED (Doc. # 95 ). Defendant' ;s motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED (Doc. # 71 ) and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED (Doc. # 64 ). In the alternative, the Court concludes that the issue presented has been deemed moot upon Plaintiff's release from SMU. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 3/31/2016. (mcot, )
August 31, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 81 ORDER: Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 71 by September 30, 2015. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 8/31/2015. (mcot, )
April 9, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 56 ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. # 50 ). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, Defendant Stirling's motion to dismiss is GRANTED to the extent that the Complaint alleges that Defendant Stirling is liable for the actions of SCDC employees under a theory of respondeat superior. (Doc. # 23 ). The motion to dismiss is DENIED in all other respects. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. (Doc. # 30 ). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 4/9/2015. (mcot, )
November 7, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. # 14 ). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice as to Defendant SCDC. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 11/07/2014. (dsto, )
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 South Carolina District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Buff v. South Carolina Department of Corrections 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: David Buff
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: South Carolina Department of Corrections
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: Bryan P Stirling
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?