Monroe v. Thomas et al (INMATE2)
Case Number: 2:2006cv00928
Filed: October 13, 2006
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Office: Montgomery Office
Presiding Judge: Mark E. Fuller
Presiding Judge: Terry F. Moorer
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition)
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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
February 24, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 58 ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that: (1) the 57 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Mag Judge is ADOPTED; (2) defs Corbier, PHS, Inc., Webb, Lysykanyez, and Sager's motion for summary judgment, as supplements, 21 , 26 , & 30 , is GRAN TED to the extent these defendants seek dismissal of this case for plf's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies; (3) defs Louis Thomas, Jenkins, Golden, Levan Thomas, Forniss, and Edwards' motion for summary judgment, as supplements, 18 & 28 , is GRANTED; (4) this case is DISMISSED with prejudice; (5) costs of the proceeding are taxed against the plf, for which execution may issue. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 2/24/09. (djy, )
October 16, 2006 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER denying 3 Motion for service of documents . Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 10/16/06. (vma, )
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: Monroe v. Thomas et al (INMATE2)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?