PETERSON v. FLOWERS et al
| LAWRENCE PETERSON |
| BRAIN SMITH, MRS. FLOWERS, C A PENFOLD, T RAY and GEORGE CRAIG |
| 1:2012cv00564 |
| April 27, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
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
17
ENTRY Discussing 16 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration - There was in this case no manifest error of law or fact. The court did not misapprehend Peterson's claim, nor did it misapply the law to that claim. Accordingly, the post-judgment motion for reconsideration, treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment 16 , is denied. (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/6/2012. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)
|
|
Filing
14
ENTRY AND ORDER Dismissing Action - The action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dismissal of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) is therefore mandatory, Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 775 (7th Cir. 2002), and judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/5/2012. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)
|
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 Indiana 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.
