Austin v. Johnson

Plaintiff: Cedric Austin
Defendant: Carl Lynn Johnson
Case Number: 4:2011cv00601
Filed: August 2, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Office: Little Rock Office
County: Lee
Presiding Judge: Jerome T. Kearney
Presiding Judge: Susan Webber Wright
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 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
June 4, 2013 Filing 94 ORDER ADOPTING 93 Report and Recommendations in their entirety; therefore, deft's 87 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and pltf's claims against him are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 6/4/13. (vjt)
March 26, 2013 Filing 91 ORDER re 87 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Carl Lynn Johnson. Plaintiff must file, within 15 days of the entry of this Order, a response to the motion for summary judgment and a separate Statement of Disputed Facts that complies with the instructions set forth in this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 3/26/13. (kpr)
April 11, 2012 Filing 55 ORDER appointing Michael D. Barnes, 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2300, Little Rock, AR 72201-3699, to represent pltf Cedric Austin in all further proceedings. The Clerk is directed to send counsel and pltf a copy of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 4/11/12. (kpr)
February 22, 2012 Filing 49 ORDER granting pltf's 46 MOTION to Dismiss deft Nelson from this action; Nelson terminated. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 2/22/12. (vjt)
January 19, 2012 Filing 43 ORDER directing plaintiff to provide a present address on defts Johnson and Nelson within 30 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 1/19/12. (kpr)
November 7, 2011 Filing 30 ORDER directing the Plaintiff to provide additional identifying information about Defendant Nelson (preferably a first name) within 10 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 11/7/11. (kpr)
October 27, 2011 Filing 26 ORDER that 18 MOTION to Amend filed by Cedric Austin, which the Court construes as a Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Defendants Hall, Wilson, Berry, and McGree, is GRANTED; McGree, Wilson, Berry and Hall terminated. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 10/27/11. (vjt)
October 3, 2011 Filing 11 ORDER directing the Clerk to prepare summons for defts Johnson, Wilson, McGree, Hall, Berry and Nelson. The U.S. Marshal is directed to serve a copy of the Amended Complaint and summons on these defts without prepayment of fees therefor. The 9 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Cedric Austin is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 10/3/11. (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: Austin v. Johnson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Cedric Austin
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: Carl Lynn Johnson
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?