Scott v. Owens et al
| Lee Dixon Scott, III |
| Grady Perry and Odell Dunnam |
| 5:2014cv00005 |
| January 8, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia |
| Waycross Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| James E. Graham |
| Lisa G. Wood |
| Civil Rights |
| 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
108
ORDER denying 98 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and DENIES his 98 Motion for a New Trial. The September 30, 2015, Judgment remains the judgment of this Court, and this case remains CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 4/13/2016. (csr)
|
|
Filing
77
ORDER denying 58 Motion for Reconsideration; granting in part 59 Motion to Pursue Pretrial Conference; denying 68 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 68 Motion for Sanctions; denying 70 Motion for Sanctions; denying 75 Motion for Entry of Default. The Court will conduct a telephonic pretrial conference on Friday, August 14, 2015 at 1:30 PM. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 8/10/2015. (csr)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER ADOPTING the Magistrate Judge's 13 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's claims against Perry are DISMISSED in their entirety, and Perry is no longer a named Defendant. Plaintiff's monetary damages claims against Dunnam in her official capacity and his injunctive relief claims are DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 8/11/2014. (csr)
|
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 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.
