Kramer v. Elmore County Sheriff Dept et al (INMATE 1)
||Mary Poppins, Officer Womble, Elmore County Commission, Elmore County Sheriff Department and William Franklin
||April 25, 2013
||Alabama Middle District Court
||Charles S. Coody
||W. Harold Albritton
|Nature of Suit:
||Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition)
|Cause of Action:
||42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|February 4, 2014
OPINION and ORDER ADOPTING 27 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge; DISMISSING this case without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 2/4/14. (djy, )
|June 5, 2013
ORDER OVERRULING 6 Objection of the plaintiff; ADOPTING 5 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Mag Judge as follows: (1) the plaintiff's claims against the Elmore County Sheriff Department are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); (2) the plaintiff's claims against the Elmore County Commission are DISMISSED in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii); (3) the Elmore County Sheriff Department and the Elmore Cou nty Commission are DISMISSED as defendants to this cause of action; (4) This case, with respect to the Plaintiff's claims against the remaining Defendants alleging mistreatment during her confinement in the Elmore County Jail is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 6/5/13. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )
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.