McClellan v. Jones (INMATE 1)

McClellan v. Jones (INMATE 1)

Plaintiff:	Jeffery Allen McClellan
Defendant:	Karla Jones
Case Number:	2:2016cv00363
Filed:	May 19, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Office:	Montgomery Office
County:	Barbour
Presiding Judge:	Susan Russ Walker
Presiding Judge:	W. Harold Albritton
Nature of Suit:	Prison Condition
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
July 17, 2019	Filing 31 ORDER it is ORDERED that: 1. The 30 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 2. The plaintiff's claims alleging violations of his constitutional rights are DISMISSED with prejudice; 3. The plaintiff's supplemental state tort claim of negligence is DISMISSED without prejudice to any right the plaintiff may have to proceed on this claim before the state courts; 4. The defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED insofar as it addresses claims alleging violations of the plaintiff's constitutional rights under 42 USC 1983; 5. This case is DISMISSED; 6. Costs are taxed against the plaintiff; A separate Final Judgment will be entered in accordance with this order. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 7/17/2019. (kr, )
August 2, 2016	Filing 21 ORDER ADOPTING 14 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by the Plaintiff is DENIED. 2. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 8/2/2016. (dmn, )

Date Filed

Document Text

July 17, 2019

Filing 31 ORDER it is ORDERED that: 1. The 30 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 2. The plaintiff's claims alleging violations of his constitutional rights are DISMISSED with prejudice; 3. The plaintiff's supplemental state tort claim of negligence is DISMISSED without prejudice to any right the plaintiff may have to proceed on this claim before the state courts; 4. The defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED insofar as it addresses claims alleging violations of the plaintiff's constitutional rights under 42 USC 1983; 5. This case is DISMISSED; 6. Costs are taxed against the plaintiff; A separate Final Judgment will be entered in accordance with this order. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 7/17/2019. (kr, )

August 2, 2016

Filing 21 ORDER ADOPTING 14 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by the Plaintiff is DENIED. 2. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 8/2/2016. (dmn, )

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: McClellan v. Jones (INMATE 1)
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jeffery Allen McClellan
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Karla Jones
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| 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?