Waterman v. Cherokee County Jail et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|September 11, 2018
ORDER ENTERED: The court dismisses Count Two and defendants Wagner, Macafee, Manzer and the Manzer Health Clinic. Defendant Judah Eliss's name shall be corrected to read "Judah Ellis." The Clerk is directed to file Doc. No. 30 as a motion in Case No. 18-3135. Doc. No. 30 is dismissed without prejudice as a motion in this case. The Clerk of the Court shall prepare waiver of service forms for the remaining defendants, pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce dure, to be served at no cost to plaintiff absent a finding by the Court that plaintiff is able to pay such costs. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 09/11/18. Mailed to pro se party Brian Michael Waterman by regular mail. (smnd)
|July 27, 2018
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motions to amend 19 & 20 are denied. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 07/27/18. Mailed to pro se party Brian Michael Waterman by regular mail. (smnd)
|May 2, 2018
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff is ordered to show cause by May 31, 2018, why the court should not dismiss plaintiff's claims in Counts Four and Five of the complaint and why the court should not dismiss the Cherokee County Jail as a defendant. A Mar tinez report is ordered consistent with Section VII ofthis order. The report should be filed on or before July 2, 2018. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 05/02/18. Mailed to pro se party Brian Michael Waterman by regular mail. (smnd)
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 Kansas District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?