RAGANS v. MCNEIL

RAGANS v. MCNEIL

Plaintiff:	KEITH RAGANS
Defendant:	WALTER A MCNEIL
Case Number:	4:2010cv00220
Filed:	May 28, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Florida
Office:	Tallahassee Office
County:	Jefferson
Presiding Judge:	ROBERT L HINKLE
Nature of Suit:	Prison Condition
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
December 14, 2010	Filing 21 ORDER OF DISMISSAL. ACCEPTING 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. All pending motions are denied. Vacating 4 order. The clerk must enter judgment stating 'This case is DISMISSED without prejudice'. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/14/2010. (pll)
November 10, 2010	Filing 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, it is RECOMMENDED that the order, doc. 4 , which granted Plaintiff's in forma pauperis motion, doc. 2 , be VACATED, that the previously submitted $4.00 filing fee be RETAINED as a sanction for Plaintiff's failure to make full and complete disclosure about his prior filings and having received at least three "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and this case be DISMISSED as an abuse of the judicial process for Plaintiff 's failure to list all prior cases. It is further RECOMMENDED that all pending motions be DENIED and the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter on the docket that this cause was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). R&R flag set. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM C SHERRILL, JR on 11/10/2010. Internal deadline for referral to district judge if objections are not filed earlier: 12/8/2010. (pll)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 14, 2010

Filing 21 ORDER OF DISMISSAL. ACCEPTING 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. All pending motions are denied. Vacating 4 order. The clerk must enter judgment stating 'This case is DISMISSED without prejudice'. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/14/2010. (pll)

November 10, 2010

Filing 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, it is RECOMMENDED that the order, doc. 4 , which granted Plaintiff's in forma pauperis motion, doc. 2 , be VACATED, that the previously submitted $4.00 filing fee be RETAINED as a sanction for Plaintiff's failure to make full and complete disclosure about his prior filings and having received at least three "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and this case be DISMISSED as an abuse of the judicial process for Plaintiff 's failure to list all prior cases. It is further RECOMMENDED that all pending motions be DENIED and the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter on the docket that this cause was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). R&R flag set. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM C SHERRILL, JR on 11/10/2010. Internal deadline for referral to district judge if objections are not filed earlier: 12/8/2010. (pll)

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: RAGANS v. MCNEIL
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: KEITH RAGANS
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: WALTER A MCNEIL
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?