Tarver v. Caldwell et al (INMATE 2)
| Robert Tarver |
| D. Diaz, A. Caldwell and Officer Tucker |
| 2:2015cv00077 |
| January 29, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
| Montgomery Office |
| Montgomery |
| Charles S. Coody |
| William Keith Watkins |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
38
ORDERED that the 37 Recommendation is ADOPTED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/15/2015. (kh, )
|
|
Filing
36
ORDERED as follows: 1. The Order (Doc. # 34 ) adopting the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge on April 28, 2015, is VACATED in light of the extension (Doc. # 35 ) of the deadline by which to object. 2. The Recommendation (Doc. # 27 ) is ADOPTE D. 3. Plaintiff Robert Tarver's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 1 ) is DENIED. 4. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 8/4/2015. (kh, )
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER ADOPTING 27 Recommendation, that Plaintiff's 1 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED, and that this action is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 4/28/2015. (dmn, )
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
