Bailey v. Gillihand et al
| Reginald Bailey |
| Ronald Gillihand, David White and Wendy Kelly |
| 1:2016cv00125 |
| September 12, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Batesville Office |
| Izard |
| Kristine G. Baker |
| Beth Deere |
| Prison Condition |
| 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
39
JUDGMENT: Consistent with the 38 Order that was entered on this day, it is considered, ordered, and adjudged that this case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 10/20/2017. (ljb)
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER approving and adopting 12 , 18 , 21 Partial Recommended Dispositions as this Court's findings in all respects; dismissing without prejudice Mr. Bailey's claims against separate defendants Wendy Kelly and David White; dismiss ing with prejudice Mr. Bailey's "HIPPA" claims against separate defendant Ronald Gillihand; dismissing with prejudice Mr. Bailey's claims for money damages against Mr. Gillihand in his official capacity; denying as moot Mr. Gillih and's request to dismiss the due process claims, no due process claims are alleged; denying 19 Mr. Gillihand's motion to dismiss; and permitting Mr. Bailey to proceed on his retaliation claim and his failure-to-protect claim against Mr. Gillihand. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 6/27/2017. (mef)
|
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 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.
