Johnson v. Adams
Plaintiff: Dwayne E Johnson
Defendant: Ed Adams
Case Number: 5:2012cv00131
Filed: April 12, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Office: Pine Bluff Office
County: Jefferson
Presiding Judge: D. P. Marshall
Presiding Judge: J. Thomas Ray
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 13, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 44 JUDGMENT re 43 Order dismissing the complaint with prejudice and certifying that an ifp appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 3/13/13. (kpr)
December 3, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 39 ORDER directing the Plaintiff to file within 30 days a Response to 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Ed Adams and a separate Statement of Disputed Facts that comply with the Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Local Rule 56.1, and the instructions set forth in this Order. Plaintiff is advised that failure to timely and properly comply will result in: (a) all of the facts in Defendant's summary judgment papers being deemed admitted by Plaintiff; or (b) the dismissal of this action, without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 12/03/2012. (kcs)
October 17, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 35 ORDER denying 33 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court certifies that an ifp appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 10/17/12. (kpr)
October 1, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER denying as moot 20 Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss; denying 21 and 22 Plaintiff's Motions to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 10/01/2012. (kcs)
September 21, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER denying 16 Motion to Compel; denying 17 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 18 Motion to Compel; denying 19 Motion for Discovery. The Clerk is directed to refrain from filing any future discovery from Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 9/21/12. (kpr)
June 21, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER adopting the substance of 10 Partial Report and Recommendations as its own; directing the Clerk of Court to indicate Johnson's jury demand on the docket sheet; and, directing the Clerk to prepare summons for Defendant Adams. Johnson may proceed with his failure-to-protect and inadequate-medical-care claims against Adams. All other claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/21/2012. (dmn)
May 16, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER denying 5 Motion to Compel; denying 6 Motion for Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 05/16/2012. (kcs)
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: Johnson v. Adams
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ed Adams
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 ]
Plaintiff: Dwayne E 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?