Shaw v. Hood et al
| Nathaniel Shaw |
| Hugh M Hood, Ruth Naglich, James Whitley, Georgia Miller, Alabama Department of Corrections Health Service Division, Corizon Health Inc and Veterans Admistration |
| 7:2014cv00389 |
| March 6, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama |
| Western Office |
| Bibb |
| John E Ott |
| Robert B Propst |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
62
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 1/23/2017. (AVC)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER-re: Report and Recommendation 8 . The court ADOPTS and APPROVES the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the court. Petitioner's Eighth Amendment medical care claims against the Departme nt of Veteran's Affairs, the Alabama Department of Corrections Health Services Division and Associate Director Ruth Naglich are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Petitioner's request for preliminary injunction relief is also DENIED. The Eighth Am endment medical care claims against Corizon Health, Inc. Hugh M. Hood, Dr. James Whitley, and Georgia Miller are REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. The Court DIRECTS the Magistrate Judge to address arguments presented in Petitioner's Motion to Amend Complaint 7 . Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 10/14/2014. (AVC)
|
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 Northern 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.
