HOWARD v. BRADDY et al
CECIL HOWARD |
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF GEORGIA, BRADDY, DIXON, BATES and WEST |
5:2012cv00404 |
October 9, 2012 |
US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia |
Macon Office |
Baldwin |
Stephen Hyles |
Marc Thomas Treadwell |
Prisoner: Prison Condition |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
Defendant |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 35 ORDER ADOPTING 31 Report and Recommendations. The action is dismissed. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 8/6/2014. (tlh) |
Filing 20 ORDER GRANTING 19 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 10/11/2013. (tlh) |
Filing 16 ORDER ADOPTING 13 Report and Recommendations, DENYING 4 Motion to Dismiss, and DENYING 7 Motion to Remand. Following a preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1), it is clear the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief against the State of Georgia, Department of Corrections, or GEO. Thus, the State of Georgia, the Department of Corrections, and GEO (to the extent it is a party) are DISMISSED from this action. As to the other Def endants, all claims are DISMISSED for frivolity or failure to state a claim except for the Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claims against Defendants Braddy, West, and Glenn, and the First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Glenn. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 9/30/2013. (tlh) |
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 Georgia Middle 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.