Jones v. Harris
| James Edward Jones |
| Lashonda Harris |
| 2:2009cv14102 |
| April 6, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| Martin |
| Donald L. Graham |
| Patrick A. White |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 State Prisoner Civil Rights |
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
35
ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendations re 34 Report and Recommendations; granting 22 Motion to Dismiss; granting 22 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 27 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 28 Motion Requesting Premature Motion for Summary Judgment be Denied re 22 MOTION to Dismiss. Case Closed. Signed by Judge Donald L. Graham on 2/23/2010. (ail)
|
|
Filing
34
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS denying 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by James Edward Jones, granting 22 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint as Heck-barred MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Lashonda Harris and denying 28 MOTION Requesti ng Premature Motion for Summary Judgment be Denied re 22 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint as Heck-barred MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by James Edward Jones. The case be closed. All other pending motions not otherwise ruled upon by separate order be dismissed as moot. Objections to R&R due by 2/22/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 2/5/2010. (tw)
|
|
Filing
18
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending 1. The Motion to Dismiss [DE# 13] be granted in part and denied in part, as follows: A. The Motion to Dismiss the claim of retaliation on February 4, 2009 be granted. B. The Motion to Dismiss the claim of retal iation on March 19, 2009 be denied. C. The Motion to Dismiss the request for compensatory and punitive damages and to dismiss the suit as to the defendants official capacity be granted. 2. The plaintiff's Request that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be Denied [DE# 14], is denied, consistent with the recommendation stated above. 3. The case proceed only on the claim of unconstitutional retaliation on March 19, 2009 against Harris in her individual capacity for nominal damages. 4. The Addendum to Request for Damages [DE# 15] be incorporated into the Complaint. Objections to R&R due by 8/21/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 8/4/2009. (tw)
|
|
Filing
7
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by James Edward Jones. Recommending that the Complaint [DE# 1] proceed against the defendant Harris in her individual capacity, on a claim of denial of rights under the First Amendment. Objections to R&R due by 5/21/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White on 5/4/2009. (tw)
|
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 Southern 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
| Search for this case: Jones v. Harris | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: James Edward Jones | |
| 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: Lashonda Harris | |
| 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.
