Johnson v. Thomas et al

Case Number: 1:2005cv00655
Filed: November 9, 2005
Court: Alabama Southern District Court
Office: Mobile Office
Presiding Judge: W. B. Hand
Referring Judge: Bert W. Milling
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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
February 1, 2008 50 Opinion or Order of the Court REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Levan Thomas be granted and that plaintiff's action against defendant Thomas be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, it is recommended that plaintiff's action against defendant Greg Pierce be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Objections to R&R due by 2/21/2008. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bert W. Milling, Jr on 2/1/08. (srr)
November 8, 2005 3 Opinion or Order of the Court Order regarding the 1 1983 Complaint and 2 IFP Motion. This 1983 Complaint and IFP Motion was originally filed in 05-389-WS as Docs. 14 and 15. The Clerk was directed to refile this Complaint and Motion in a new civil action. The plaintiff is ordered to file an amended complaint as set out by 11/30/05. Disposition Deadline set to 11/30/2005. Signed by Judge William H. Steele on 11/8/05. Copy of order & 1983 complaint form mailed to pla. on 11/9/05.(tgw)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Johnson v. Thomas et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
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?