Swisher v. Giles et al (INMATE 2)
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|March 7, 2013
ORDER that: 1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is DISMISSED as moot. 3. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 15 with respect to Plaintiff's claim for monetary d amages lodged against them in their official capacities is GRANTED, as Defendants are entitled to absolute immunity from these claims. 4. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of Defendants Giles and Baldwin 15 is GRANTED. 5. The Motio n for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of Defendants Lee, Wilson, Holcey, and Griffin 15 with respect to Plaintiff's July 3, 2010 excessive force claim lodged against these Defendants in all aspects of their individual capacities is DENIED. 6. This case will be set for non-jury trial by separate order. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 3/7/2013. (jg, )
|September 15, 2010
ORDER denying 7 Motion for TRO. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 9/15/2010. (br, )
|August 12, 2010
ORDER directing payment of initial partial filing fee of $1.35 be paid on or before September 2, 2010; Directing Monthly Payments be made from Inmate's Prison Account until fee is paid in full; granting 2 Affidavit for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis except to the extent payment is required under this order. Copies mailed to plaintiff and account clerk at the Bullock Correctional Facility. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 8/12/2010. (jg, )
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
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?