Nance v. Blanco et al (INMATE1)
Centorian Nance |
Bob Riley, Pat Le Blanc, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and Richard Allen |
2:2007cv00199 |
March 6, 2007 |
US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
Montgomery Office |
XX US, Outside State |
Charles S. Coody |
Myron H. Thompson |
Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Centorian Nance, it is the Recommendation of the Mag Judge that: 1) The plaintiff's claims against dft Riley be dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the provisions of 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); 2) The plaintiff's claims with respect to his transfer to the Southeast Correctional Center be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii); 3) Bob Riley a nd Richard Allen be dismissed as dfts in this cause of action; 4) The plaintiff's state law claims be dismissed without prejudice; 5) This case, with respect to the plaintiff's claims challenging the conditions of confinement at the Southeast Correctional Center in Basile, Louisiana be transferred to the USDC for the Western District of Louisiana pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1404; Objections to R&R due by 3/29/2007. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 3/16/07. (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.