Davis v. Montgomery County Detention Facility et al (INMATE 2)(CONSENT)
Albert Davis |
Montgomery County Detention Facility and Derrick Cunningham |
2:2016cv00008 |
January 6, 2016 |
US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
Montgomery Office |
Montgomery |
Gray Borden |
W. Harold Albritton |
Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 33 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Gray M. Borden on 8/3/2016. (kh, ) |
Filing 12 ORDER re 6 Report and Recommendations entered on January 13, 2016. There being no timely objection filed to the Recommendation, and after a review of the file, the Recommendation is ADOPTED, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs comp laint against Defendant Montgomery County Commission is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1918(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii). 2. Plaintiff's complaint against Defendant Quality Correctional Healthcare, Inc. is DISMISSED without preju dice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 3. Defendants Montgomery County Commission and Quality Correctional Healthcare, Inc. are DISMISSED as parties prior to service of process. 4. This case with respect to the remaining Defendants is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 2/4/2016. (kh, ) |
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.