Patric v. Kelley et al
| Patric Patterson |
| Wendy Kelley, Randy Watson, Bolden, Andrews, Bankston, Manzetti and Does |
| 5:2015cv00075 |
| March 6, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Pine Bluff Office |
| Hot Spring |
| J. Leon Holmes |
| J. Thomas Ray |
| 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
80
ORDER ADOPTING 78 Recommended Disposition. Defendants' 71 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted; Patterson's claims against Bolden, Andrews, Bankston, Mazzanti, Simpson, and Bradley are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 9/14/2016. (mcz)
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER adopting 53 Recommendation in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; granting in part and denying in part 28 40 motions for summary judgment. Patterson's failure to protect claims against Kelley and Watson are d ismissed without prejudice. Patterson may proceed with his failure to protect claims against Mazzanti, Bankston, Simpson, Andrews, Bradley, and Bolden. It is certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 10/2/2015. (ks)
|
|
Filing
5
INITIAL ORDER for pro se prisoners. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 03/10/2015. (kcs)
|
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.
