Adkins v. Doshi (INMATE 2)

Plaintiff: Ernest A. Adkins
Defendant: Sangeeta Doshi
Case Number: 2:2012cv01023
Filed: November 21, 2012
Court: Alabama Middle District Court
Office: Montgomery Office
County: Montgomery
Referring Judge: Charles S. Coody
Presiding Judge: Truman M. Hobbs
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
March 17, 2016 68 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that the 66 objection is OVERRULED, and the court ADOPTS the 65 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; it is hereby ORDERED that Dft's 22 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 3/17/2016. (wcl, )

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: Adkins v. Doshi (INMATE 2)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ernest A. Adkins
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: Sangeeta Doshi
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?