Mitchell v. Brown et al
Darren Mitchell |
John and Jane Does and Judy Ziegler |
1:2009cv00714 |
March 17, 2009 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia |
Atlanta Office |
XX US, Outside State |
Story |
Prison Condition |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 75 ORDER granting 64 Ziegler's Motion to Dismiss Mitchell's complaint; denying Mitchell's 73 Motion to Amend d his complaint to name two additionaldefendants; and this action is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 8/12/2010. (pdw) |
Filing 69 ORDER directing the Clerk of Court to transmit to Plaintiff a copy of the 64 Motion to Dismiss along with the attached memorandum of law and exhibits. Plaintiff shall have TWENTY (20) days from the entry date of this Order to file a response to De fendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's request 68 is GRANTED to the extent that the Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit to Plaintiff a copy of the docket report, which contains the address of Defendant's counsel. Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit to Plaintiff a copy of this Court's January 27, 2010, Order. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 2/19/2010. (gar) |
Filing 49 ORDER denying 34 Motion for leave of court to create "standing" for John Charles Brogdon on behalf of plaintiff; 35 Motion for documents to identify the Jane and/or John Does named in instant case ; 36 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; 39 Omnibus MOTION to Initiate Discovery, MOTION to Perform Enumerated Tasks, MOTION to Rule on Pertinent and Necessary Motions Tendered Concomitantly; 44 Motion to Appeal in forma pauperis; and 46 and 47 Motions for the entry of default. IT IS FU RTHER ORDERED that Defendants John and Jane Does are DISMISSED from this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's equal protection and deliberate indifference claims against Defendant Ziegler are DISMISSED pursuant to § 1915A for fail ure to state claim for relief and that only Plaintiff's due process claim against Defendant Ziegler is ALLOWED to PROCEED. The Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to send the plaintiff a USM 285 form, summons, and initial disclosures form for defendant(s) . Plaintiff is DIRECTED to complete a USM 285 form, summons, and initial disclosures form for Defendant Ziegler, and to return them to the Clerk of Court within twenty (20) days from the entry date of this Order. Upon receipt of the forms by the Cler k, the Clerk is DIRECTED to prepare a service waiver package for Defendant Ziegler. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case SHALL proceed on a four (4) month discovery track, beginning thirty (30) days after the appearance of Defendant Ziegler by answer to the complaint, subject to extension by motion filed prior to the expiration of the discovery period. Until the discovery period commences in this case, Plaintiff shall not serve Defendant Ziegler with any discovery requests or file any additional discovery motions with this Court. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 9/16/2009. (Forms sent: USM 285, Summons, Initial Disclosures) (gar) |
Filing 23 ORDER denying 13 Motion ; adopting re 17 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 12/17/08. (cmr) [Transferred from Georgia Southern on 3/17/2009.] |
Filing 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the 13 MOTION to prohibit retaliatory action against pla be denied. Objections to R&R due by 11/20/2008 Signed by Magistrate Judge W. Leon Barfield on 10/31/2008. (thb) [Transferred from Georgia Southern on 3/17/2009.] |
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 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.