Bradford v. Saline County Detention Center et al
| Dylan Jerome Bradford |
| Saline County Detention Center, Doe, T Brown, Benton, City of, Stetson Creach, Jay Neal, Tonya Mae Parker and Ashley Cummings |
| 4:2019cv00134 |
| February 20, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Jerome T Kearney |
| Brian S Miller |
| Prison Condition: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 27, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 18 EVIDENCE by Dylan Jerome Bradford. (kdr) |
| Filing 17 APPELLATE FILING FEE NOTICE to Plaintiff. (kdr) |
Filing 16
JUDGMENT: Consistent with #15 Order entered on this day, this case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 3/26/2019. (kdr)
|
|
Filing 15
ORDER adopting #7 proposed findings and recommendations, and dismissing this case without prejudice; counting dismissal of this lawsuit as a strike; certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this order and accompanying judgment would not be taken in good faith; and denying as moot Docs. Nos. #9 #10 #11 #12 . Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 3/26/2019. (kdr)
|
| Filing 14 OBJECTION to #7 Report and Recommendations by Dylan Jerome Bradford. (kdr) |
| Filing 13 ADDENDUM to #10 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dylan Jerome Bradford. (ljb) |
| Filing 12 MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Evidence and Request for Production of Documents by Dylan Jerome Bradford. (llg) |
| Filing 11 MOTION for Order by Dylan Jerome Bradford. (kdr) |
| Filing 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Dylan Jerome Bradford. (kdr) |
| Filing 9 MOTION for Discovery by Dylan Jerome Bradford. (kdr) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE to the Court by Dylan Jerome Bradford. (ljb) |
|
Filing 7
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending #6 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint against Defendants be DISMISSED, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dismissal of this action constitutes a "strike" within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from an Order and Judgment dismissing this action would not be taken in good faith. Objections are due no later than 14 days from the date of the findings and recommendations. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 03/11/2019. (lmc)
|
| Filing 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants filed by Dylan Jerome Bradford. (llg) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE to the Court by Dylan Jerome Bradford. (kdr) |
|
Filing 4
INITIAL ORDER FOR PRO SE PRISONERS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 02/22/2019. (lmc)
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER granting #1 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; directing monthly payments be collected from Plaintiff's prison trust account until a total of $350 has been collected and forwarded to the Clerk of Court; directing Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days from the date of this Order; directing the Clerk to mail Plaintiff the Court-provided 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 Complaint form; and directing the Clerk of Court to send a copy of this Order to the Saline County Detention Facility. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 2/22/2019. (kdr)
|
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Dylan Jerome Bradford.(kdr) |
| Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Dylan Jerome Bradford. (kdr) |
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 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.
