Ayers v. Singleton et al
| Eric D. Ayers |
| Singleton, Terry, Benion, Osborne and SRT Officers |
| 2:2014cv28753 |
| November 20, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
| Charleston Office |
| Kanawha |
| Dwane L. Tinsley |
| John T. Copenhaver |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
16
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 14 Second Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth therein, and that the plaintiff's action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 1/5/2018. (cc: plaintiff, pro se; counsel of record; United States Magistrate Judge) (taq)
|
|
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; notice of this filing to the plaintiff has been returned undeliverable; on 7/11/2017, the plaintiff filed notice of his current address; it appears to the court that the plaintiff may not have received a copy of the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, which recommends dismissal without prejudice; acting on that assumption, the court declines to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendation and again refers this matter to Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for all such further proceedings as may be appropriate. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 10/19/2017. (cc: plaintiff; counsel of record; the United States Magistrate Judge) (taq)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
