Jenkins v. Hutcheson
Adrian Jenkins |
Joseph Hutcheson and Internal Affairs GA |
6:2014cv00081 |
July 31, 2014 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia |
Statesboro Office |
Tattnall |
James E. Graham |
B. Avant Edenfield |
Prison Condition |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 180 ORDER denying 166 Motion Requesting Transcripts. Upon receipt of theaforementioned notice from Plaintiff by the Clerk, the Court Orders that Plaintiff's custodian shall forward the funds requested to the Clerk, U.S. District Court, P.O. Box 8286, Savannah, GA 31412. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 08/03/2018. (thb) |
Filing 144 ORDER dismissing as moot 131 Motion for Settlement Conference; denying 132 Motion for Court Ordered Exhibits and Pleadings; denying 133 Motion for Writ Directing Transfer from GSP. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 11/6/2017. (ca) |
Filing 134 ORDER and NOTICE of Pretrial Proceedings. The Court directs each party to file with the Clerk of Court a proposed pretrial order by the close of business on 10/16/2017. All evidentiary objections and motions in limine that have not been resolved pri or to the pretrial conference shall be submitted in writing by 10/30/2017. Pretrial conference is scheduled for Monday, 11/27/17, at 2:00 P.M. in Statesboro and jury selection and trial assignment is scheduled for 11/28/17 in Statesboro. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 09/29/2017. (pts) |
Filing 120 ORDER overruling the parties' Objections; adopting the 103 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the opinion of the Court; granting in part Defendant's 84 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's excessive force claims regarding incidents three (3) and four (4), but denying in part Defendant's 84 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's excessive force claims regarding incidents one (1) and two (2); and reminding the parties to follow the directives set forth in the Magistrate Judge's 103 Order dated June 22, 2016.. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 8/25/2016. (jah) |
Filing 102 ORDER denying Plaintiff's 95 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 6/15/2016. (jah) |
Filing 94 ORDER overruling 81 Objection and 93 Objection. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 11/23/2015. (thb) |
Filing 42 ORDER adopting re 34 Report and Recommendations denying re 24 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 2/11/2015. (loh) |
Filing 35 ORDER directing service of the 34 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 24 MOTION to Dismiss (Pre-Answer) filed by Joseph Hutcheson. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Graham on 12/9/2014. (ca) |
Filing 26 ORDER directing the Plaintiff to file any objections to the Defendant's 24 MOTION to Dismiss, or to otherwise inform the court of his decision not to object within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. The Clerk is directed to attach a copy of Rule 41, Fed.R.Civ.P., as well as Rule 12, Fed.R.Civ.P., to the copy of the Order that is served upon the Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Graham on 11/14/2014. (ca) |
Filing 18 ORDER adopting re 11 Report and Recommendations dismissing plaintiff's claims against Internal Affairs. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 10/27/2014. (loh) |
Filing 12 ORDER directing service of 11 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 1 Complaint filed by Joseph Hutcheson. Objections due 10/10/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Graham on 9/23/2014. (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.