Bell v. Hill (MAG+)
Plaintiff: Nathan C. Bell
Defendant: A. L. Hill
Case Number: 1:2008cv00488
Filed: June 20, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Office: Civil Rights: Other Office
County: Houston
Presiding Judge: Charles S. Coody
Presiding Judge: William Keith Watkins
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
November 12, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Mag Judge; granting def A.L. Hill's motion to dismiss and plf Bell's claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 11/12/08. (djy, )
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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bell v. Hill (MAG+)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Nathan C. Bell
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: A. L. Hill
Represented By: Robert Randolph Neeley
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?