Hayes v. Giles et al (INMATE2)

Plaintiff: Eddie Ahmad Hayes
Defendant: Warden Giles, Dr. Farrell, Mrs. James and Mr. Jenkins
Case Number: 2:2008cv00416
Filed: June 2, 2008
Court: Alabama Middle District Court
Office: Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) Office
County: Barbour
Referring Judge: Wallace Capel
Presiding Judge: Mark E. Fuller
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
January 4, 2011 49 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that plaintiff's 47 objection to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge filed on December 3, 2010 is overruled; that 42 Report and Recommendations is ADOPTED; that Defendants Giles and Jenkins' 22 motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim is GRANTED; that Defendants' 13 , 14 , 22 and 32 motions for summary judgment on plaintiff's ADA claim are GRANTED; that Plaintiff's claims against defendants Giles and Jenkins are DISM ISSED with prejudice; that Defendants Ferrell and James' 13 , 14 and 32 motions for summary judgment on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim are GRANTED to the extent these defendants seek dismissal of this claim due to plaintiff's failure to properly exhaust an administrative remedy previously available to him at the Ventress Correctional Facility; that Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Ferrell and James are DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for plaintiff's failure to exhaust an administrative remedy available to him during his confinement at the Ventress Correctional Facility; that costs of this action are taxed against the plaintiff for which execution may issue. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 1/4/2011. (cc, )
December 2, 2010 45 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that 42 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS is ADOPTED; that Defendants Giles and Jenkins' 22 motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim is GRANTED; that Defendants' 13 , 14 , 22 and 32 motions for summary judgment on plaintiff's ADA claim are GRANTED; that Plaintiff's claims against defendants Giles and Jenkins are DISMISSED with prejudice; that Defendants Ferrell and James' 13 , 14 and 32 motions for summary judgment on plaintiff 's Eighth Amendment claim are GRANTED to the extent these defendants seek dismissal of this claim due to plaintiff's failure to properly exhaust an administrative remedy previously available to him at the Ventress Correctional Facility; tha t Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Ferrell and James are DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for plaintiff's failure to exhaust an administrative remedy available to him during his confinement at the Ventress Correctional Facility; that costs of this action are taxed against the plaintiff for which execution may issue. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 12/2/2010. (cc, )
October 28, 2010 42 Opinion or Order of the Court REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Defendants Giles and Jenkins' 22 motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Claim be GRANTED; that Defendants' motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff's ADA claim (Doc. Nos. 13 , 14 , 22 , 32 ) be GRANTED; that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Giles and Jenkins be DISMISSED with prejudice; that Defendants Ferrell and James' motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim (Doc. Nos. 13 , 14 , 32 ) be GRANTED to the extent these Defendants seek dismissal of this claim due to Plaintiff's failure to properly exhaust an administrativeremedy previously available to him at the Ventress Correctional Facility; that Plaintiff 9;s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Ferrell and James be DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust an administrative remedy available to him during his confinement at the Ventress Correctional Facility; that costs of this action be taxed against Plaintiff for which execution may issue; Objections to R&R due by 11/11/2010. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 10/28/2010. (cc, )

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: Hayes v. Giles et al (INMATE2)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Eddie Ahmad Hayes
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Warden Giles
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Dr. Farrell
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Mrs. James
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Mr. Jenkins
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 [ 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?