Dykeman v. South Carolina, State of

Petitioner: John Dykeman
Respondent: South Carolina, State of
Case Number: 8:2013cv02933
Filed: October 29, 2013
Court: South Carolina District Court
Office: Anderson/Greenwood Office
County: Beaufort
Referring Judge: Jacquelyn D Austin
Presiding Judge: Mary G Lewis
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28:2254
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
March 5, 2015 75 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations 67 , granting 21 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 61 Motion to Dismiss; denying 61 Motion for Hearing; denying 74 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 3/5/2015.(gpre, )

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: Dykeman v. South Carolina, State of
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: John Dykeman
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: South Carolina, State of
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 [ 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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.