Newton v. Kentucky State Police et al
| 3:2006cv00042 |
| June 29, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| Karen K. Caldwell |
| Pro Se |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
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
76
JUDGMENT 1. The Complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Paul Harold Newton, Jr. 1 against Defendants Franklin County Courthouse, Franklin County Regional Jail, Hardin, Kentucky State Police, Waldridge, Casey Mahoney, David Decker, H. Stevens, Heather Sherrow, Jeff Abram, John Banta, Kevin Calhoon, Kevin Dunn, Larry Cleveland, Linda Bemis, Linda Shannon, Mack Rayburn, Mark McKeehan, Phillip Grimes, R. Mazzacone, Richard Rodgers, Ricky Sparks, Roger Crittenden, Sabina Trivette, Shane McKenzie, Ted Hammermeister, Thomas Wingate, Tim Flowers, William Graham, William Read is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and Judgment is ENTERED in favor of these Defendants. 2. The Court certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. 3. This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 3/11/2009.(CBD)cc: COR
|
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 Kentucky Eastern 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
| Search for this case: Newton v. Kentucky State Police et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
