WROMAS v. TUTEN et al
| KEITH WROMAS |
| R A TUTEN, A ANDERSON and MOSS |
| 4:2018cv00209 |
| April 18, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Florida |
| Tallahassee Office |
| Taylor |
| MARK E WALKER |
| CHARLES A STAMPELOS |
| 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
110
AMENDED ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART THE 105 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 85 , is DENIED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No 92 , is DENIED in part. Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants Anderson and Moss, but otherwise DENIED as to Defendant Tuten. This matter is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE MARK E WALKER on 9/15/2020. (kjw)
|
|
Filing
109
ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - The 105 report and recommendation is accepted in part as it relates to Plaintiff's motion and adopted as this Court's opinion as to Plaintiffs motion only. As for De fendant's motion, this Court rejects the report and recommendation. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 85 , is DENIED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No 92 , is DENIED. This matter is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE MARK E WALKER on 9/11/2020. (cle)
|
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.
