KING v. HOUSTON COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE et al
| ISSAC KING, JR |
| WILLIAM H RAPE, CULLEN TALTON, HOUSTON COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, ALAN EVERIDGE and ALEX LUMPKIN |
| 5:2014cv00058 |
| February 13, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia |
| Macon Office |
| Houston |
| STEPHEN HYLES |
| MARC THOMAS TREADWELL |
| 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
29
ORDER DENYING 28 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 5/30/2014. (tlh)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER GRANTING 18 Motion to Amend/Correct and DENYING as moot 15 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Having conducted a preliminary review of Plaintiff's Complaint, as required by 29 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint and all claims for damages against the Defendants should be DISMISSED. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/21/2014. (tlh)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER granting 2 , 11 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 3 , 12 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP is granted and he is directed to pay an initial partial filing fee of $7.09 within twenty-one days. Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel are denied at this time. Ordered by US Magistrate Judge STEPHEN HYLES on 3/18/14. (AGH)
|
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.
