Bullock v. The State of Alabama (INMATE 1)

Plaintiff: Maurice Bullock
Defendant: The State of Alabama
Case Number: 2:2015cv00059
Filed: January 26, 2015
Court: Alabama Middle District Court
Office: Montgomery Office
County: Bullock
Referring Judge: Charles S. Coody
Presiding Judge: William Keith Watkins
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
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
March 4, 2015 8 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER directing that, upon an independent review of the record, it is ORDERED that the 7 Recommendation is ADOPTED, and that Plaintiff Maurice Bullock's motion to dismiss (Doc. # 5 ) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on March 4, 2015. (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: Bullock v. The State of Alabama (INMATE 1)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Maurice Bullock
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: The State of Alabama
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?