Walker-Mahdi v. Dixon et al
Plaintiff: Byron Abdul Walker-Mahdi
Defendant: Doug Dixon, Shannon Dahlem, John Maples and Ray Hobbs
Case Number: 1:2011cv00115
Filed: December 6, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Office: Batesville Office
County: Hot Spring
Presiding Judge: Jerome T. Kearney
Presiding Judge: Brian S. Miller
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
December 17, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 55 ORDER ADOPTING 53 the proposed findings and recommended disposition; denying 34 Plaintiff Byron Abdul Walker-Mahdi's motion for partial summary judgment; granting 47 Defendants' motion for summary judgment; dismissing with prejudice all claims against defendants Shannon Dahlem and Doug Dixon; and dismissing without prejudice all claims against defendants John Maples and Ray Hobbs. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 12/17/2012. (kdr)
September 19, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 46 ORDER approving and adopting 40 Partial Report and Recommendations in their entirety in all respects. Plaintiff Byron Abdul Walker-Mahdi's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 9/19/2012. (dmn)
May 22, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER rejecting 25 the proposed findings and partial recommended disposition; and directing Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney to hold a hearing on 21 plaintiff Byron Abdul Walker-Mahdi's motion for preliminary injunction, focusing on the issue of whether Walker-Mahdi was discriminated against because of his religion in the Substance Abuse Treatment Program (SATP). Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 5/22/2012. (kdr)
January 10, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER denying 8 Motion for Reconsideration re 8 MOTION for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 1/10/12. (kpr)
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 Arkansas Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Walker-Mahdi v. Dixon et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Byron Abdul Walker-Mahdi
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: Doug Dixon
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: Shannon Dahlem
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: John Maples
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: Ray Hobbs
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?