Frazier v. Carter et al
| Michael Douglas Frazier |
| David Carter and Zach Wolverton |
| 3:2016cv00224 |
| August 29, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Jonesboro Office |
| Lee |
| Brian S. Miller |
| Civil Rights |
| 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
21
JUDGMENT consistent with the order entered on this day, this case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 10/19/2017. (jak)
|
|
Filing
15
ORDER denying 12 Motion to Compel because Defendants David Carter and Zach Wolverton certified that the requested materials do not exist or are not in their possession. Frazier is reminded that he must attempt to resolve discovery disputes before filing a motion to compel and certify that he has done so in his motion. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 1/19/2017. (jak)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER: All claims against Carter and Wolverton in their official capacities are dismissed. Frazier may proceed on his excessive force claims against Carter and Wolverton in their individual capacities. The clerk is directed to prepare a summons for Carter and Wolverton, and the U.S. Marshal is directed to serve the summons, 2 complaint and this order on them without prepayment of fees and costs or security. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 10/5/2016. (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.
