THOMAS v. CREWS
Plaintiff: DEVANDAL BERNARD THOMAS
Defendant: MICHAEL D CREWS
Case Number: 3:2013cv00571
Filed: October 25, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Florida
Office: Pensacola Office
County: Santa Rosa
Presiding Judge: ROGER VINSON
Presiding Judge: CHARLES J KAHN
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
April 14, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 33 ORDER adopting the magistrate judge's 32 Report and Recommendation. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as malicious. The clerk is directed to close the file. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE ROGER VINSON on 4/14/2015. (djb)
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 Florida Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: THOMAS v. CREWS
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: DEVANDAL BERNARD THOMAS
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: MICHAEL D CREWS
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?