CHESTNUT v. PETERSEN
| GERNARD CHESTNUT |
| KIMBERLY PETERSEN, MIKE WOOD and CHARLIE GILMORE |
| 4:2011cv00225 |
| May 19, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Florida |
| Tallahassee Office |
| Leon |
| MAURICE M PAUL |
| WILLIAM C SHERRILL |
| 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
71
ORDER ADOPTING 70 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Granting 64 Motion for Summary Judgment and Clerk directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants, KIMBERLY PETERSEN and CHARLIE GILMORE on all claims. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE MAURICE M PAUL on 3/31/2014. (jws)
|
|
Filing
60
ORDER ADOPTING 56 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: granting Defendants' 48 Motion to Dismiss. Five specific claims against GILMORE, HOFFMAN, MITCHELL, BROWN, CARROUTH, PARRAMORE, and RICHTER are DISMISSED because Plaintiff fail ed to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to §1997(e) and DISMISSED except for GILMORE from this action. Case is REMANDED for further proceedings on surviving claims against Defendant PETERSON and GILMORE. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE MAURICE M PAUL on 2/28/2013. (jws)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER re 32 Objection to R&R filed by GERNARD CHESTNUT, construed as a Motion for Reconsideration, is GRANTED. 31 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION is VACATED. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM C SHERRILL, JR on 3/7/2012. (jws)
|
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 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.
