Canady v. Haralson (INMATE 1)

Plaintiff: Michael Shane Canaday
Defendant: Rufus Haralson
Case Number: 2:2014cv00280
Filed: April 15, 2014
Court: Alabama Middle District Court
Office: Montgomery Office
County: Lowndes
Presiding Judge: Mark E. Fuller
Referring Judge: Terry F. Moorer
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983
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
July 16, 2014 12 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER directing that, upon an independent review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT and DECREE of the court that: (1) The 11 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; (2) The plaintiff's 7 motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice; (3) No costs are taxed herein. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 7/16/14. (scn, )

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: Canady v. Haralson (INMATE 1)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael Shane Canaday
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: Rufus Haralson
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?