Haynes v. Richmond County Sheriff Office et al
Plaintiff: Roderick D. Haynes
Defendant: Richmond County Sheriff Office and Michael Garner
Case Number: 1:2014cv00237
Filed: December 23, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
Office: Augusta Office
County: Ware
Presiding Judge: Brian K. Epps
Presiding Judge: J. Randal Hall
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
November 27, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 123 ORDER making the 122 USCA Mandate the Order of this Court. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 11/27/2018. (jlh) Modified on 11/27/2018 (jlh).
August 31, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 110 ORDER ADOPTING 105 Report and Recommendations. Defendant's 82 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants. This civil action stands closed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 08/31/2017. (pts)
November 8, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 91 ORDER directing Plaintiff to file any opposition to 82 MOTION for Summary Judgment or to inform the Court of his decision not to object to Defendant's motion within 21 days of the date of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 11/08/2016. (maa)
September 29, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 89 ORDER denying Plaintiff's 85 Motion to Serve Additional Interrogatories to Defendant. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 09/29/2016. (jah)
August 30, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 80 ORDER denying Plaintiff's 75 Motion for Penalty of Perjury; and, denying as moot Plaintiff's 76 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 8/30/2016. (jah)
August 2, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 74 ORDER granting Plaintiff's 72 Motion for Discovery, subject to the restrictions in the 72 May 24th Order (Note: Clerk is directed to attach a copy of this Order to Plaintiff's copy of this Order); directing the Clerk to send to Plainti ff three signed civil subpoena AO88 forms; extending discovery period to September 1, 2016; and, denying as moot Plaintiff's 73 Motion for Leave to take a deposition of Defendant upon written questions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 8/2/2016. (jah)
May 24, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 68 ORDER denying Plaintiff's 33 First Motion for Subpoena ; denying Plaintiff's 46 First Motion to Compel; denying Plaintiff's 47 Second Motion to Compel; granting Plaintiff's 50 Motion for Subpoena as to Coffee Correction al Facility; granting Plaintiff's 52 Motion for an Additional Set of Interrogatories; denying in part Defendant's 54 Motion to Quash; granting 58 Motion for Subpoena to Georgia Public Safety Training Center; denying as moot Plainti ff's 61 Third Motion to Compel; denying as moot Plaintiff's 64 Fourth Motion to Compel; denying in part Defendant's 65 Motion to Quash; granting Plaintiff's [39-1, pp, 1,4] request for subpoena as to the Richmond County Sh eriff's Office; denying Plaintiff's [39-1, p. 7] request for a subpoena to the Georgia Department of Public Safety; noting that Plaintiff's motions for subpoena [39-1, pp. 1,4; 50; 58] are granted, subject to the restrictions in this Order; and extending the close of discovery to August 1, 2016 and the motions deadline to September 1, 2016 to allow time for Plaintiff to subpoena the relevant information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 5/24/2016. (jah)
March 23, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 53 ORDER adopting the 43 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court; granting in part Defendant's 27 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part Plaintiff's 30 Motion to Strike; dismisses Plaintiff's official capacity claims; and striking Defendant's second and seventh affirmative defenses. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 3/23/2016. (jah)
October 9, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER denying Plaintiff's [21-1] Motion to Compel and [21-2] Motion to Produce; granting Plaintiff's 22 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint; directing the Clerk to docket Plaintiff's proposed complaint as his amended complaint; and notifying the Defendant that an answer to Plaintiff's amended complaint should be filed within twenty-one days of date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 10/9/2015. (jah)
June 4, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendations. Therefore, Defendant Richmond County Sheriff's Office is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 6/4/15. (cmr)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Haynes v. Richmond County Sheriff Office et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Roderick D. Haynes
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: Richmond County Sheriff Office
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: Michael Garner
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.


Why Is My Information Online?