Cayton v. Allen et al
| Jeffery L Cayton |
| Mike Allen, Ron Coleman and Dewayne Smith |
| 3:2015cv00297 |
| September 18, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Jonesboro Office |
| Mississippi |
| Patricia S. Harris |
| J. Leon Holmes |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
ORDER approving and adopting in their entirety the 38 findings and recommendation as this Court's findings in all respects; granting the 33 motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Mike Allen and Ron Coleman; dismissing with prejudic e plaintiff Jeffrey L. Cayton's 2 complaint; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Judgment will be entered for all of the defendants. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 11/17/2016. (ljb)
|
|
Filing
37
ORDER adopting 32 Proposed Findings and Partial Recommended Disposition in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. Defendants' partial motion for summary judgment, 23 , is granted and Cayton's claims regarding the assault, and his claims that he was left in his cell thereafter, are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 9/1/2016. (jak)
|
|
Filing
36
ORDER allowing Cayton an opportunity to file a response opposing the motion. To be considered, the response must be filed within 14 days of this order's entry date. If Cayton files a response, he must also file a separate, short statement setting forth the disputed facts that he believes must be decided at a trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 8/24/2016. (jak)
|
|
Filing
26
ORDER directing Cayton to file his response to defendants' motion for summary judgment, 23 , no later than 14 days after this order's entry date. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 5/13/2016. (jak)
|
|
Filing
22
ORDER adopting 19 Proposed Findings and Partial Recommended Disposition in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. Plaintiff's claims against defendant Dewayne Smith are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 4/20/2016. (jak)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER directing the Clerk to forward an IFP application to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is directed to submit the remaining balance of $350 filing fee, or to complete and sign the IFP application, and file it, no later than 30 days after the entry date of this order. Plaintiff's failure to do so will result in the recommended dismissal of his complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 3/7/2016. (jak)
|
|
Filing
3
INITIAL ORDER FOR PRO SE PRISONER-PLAINTIFFS. Granting 1 Motion for Proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will assess an initial partial filing fee of $5.60 and Plaintiff's custodians are directed to collect the fee from plaintiff's i nstitutional account until the $350 filing fee is paid in full. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to the Supervisor of the Northeast Arkansas Community Correction Center and the Director of the Arkansas Department of Community Correction. The Clerk of the Court is directed to prepare summonses for defendants and the U.S. Marshal is directed to serve a copy of the complaint, 2 , and this Order and summons upon each without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 9/28/2015. (jak)
|
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.
