Hicks v. Department of Corrections et al (INMATE1)
| Charles Hicks |
| Richard Allen and Prison Health Services |
| 2:2007cv00148 |
| February 20, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
| Montgomery Office |
| Elmore |
| Charles S. Coody |
| Mark E. Fuller |
| Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
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
5
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Charles Hicks, it is the Recommendation of the Mag Judge that: 1) The plaintiff's claims against the ADOC and Staton Corr Fac be dismissed prior to service of process in accordance with the provisions of 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 2) The ADOC and Staton Corr Fac be dismissed from this cause of action; 3) This case, with respect to the plaintiff's claims against Richard Allen and Prison Health Services, Inc., be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings; Objections to R&R due by 3/7/2007. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 2/22/07. (vma, )
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER granting 2 Affidavit for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis except to the extent payment is required under this order. Directing Monthly Payments be made from Inmate's Prison Account until fee is paid in full as further set out in order;. Copies mailed to plaintiff and account clerk at Frank Lee Youth Center; furn: cashier. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 2/21/07. (vma, )
|
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 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.
