Bailey v. Ingram et al
| David Wayne Bailey |
| Randy Ingram, Kevin Bugg, Lonnitta Tomlison, Don Bottom, Jason Perkins, Teresa Esque, David L. Mudd, Brandon Lynch, Justin Yeast and C. Craig Hughes |
| 5:2014cv00279 |
| July 11, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Lexington Office |
| Boyle |
| PSO |
| Danny C. Reeves |
| Prisoner Petitions (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Both |
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
88
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition 87 is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court; 2. The Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defe ndants Bugg, Ingram, and Bottom [[84, 85 ] are GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff David Wayne Baileys First Amendment retaliation claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Bugg, Ingram, and Bottom are DISMISSED; 4. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STICKEN from the Courts active docket; 5. Judgment in favor of the defendants will be entered contemporaneously with this Order.. Signed by Judge Claria Horn Boom on 11/21/2018.(KM)cc: COR, Pltf via U.S. mail
|
|
Filing
59
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Motion to Dismiss filed by Dft's Bugg, Ingram, & Tomlinson 46 is GRANTED; 2. Pla's claims against Dft's Bugg, Ingram, Tomlinson, & NTC Warden Bottom are DISMISSED; 3. Bailey's Motion for Summary J udgment 56 is DENIED; 4. Bailey's Motion to Amend Complaint 57 is DENIED; 5. Action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, and STRICKEN from Court's docket. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 11/4/2016.(KM)cc: COR, sent via US mail to Pro Se Bailey
|
|
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Bailey's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal 18 is DENIED; 2. Bailey's motion to appoint counsel 20 is DENIED w/out prejudice to filing a motion seeking the appointment of counsel in the Unite d States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; 3. Within thirty days of the date of entry of this Order, Bailey must either: (a) pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee, in full, in this Court; or (b) file a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, accompanied by an affidavit of assets and six-month certificate of inmate account; 4. If Bailey either fails to pay the entire filing fee or submit a motion to proceed IFP on appe al w\in thirty days of the date of entry of this Order, the Sixth Circuit may dismiss his appeal for failure to prosecute; 5. The Clerk shall transmit a copy of this Order to the the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 11/13/2014.(lc)cc: COR, Plaintiff via us mail, 6CCA
|
|
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: (1) Bailey's 8/27/2014 10 Motion to Amend his Complaint is GRANTED. Bailey's 9/8/2014 11 Motion to Amend his Complaint is DENIED as DUPLICATIVE of Record. (2) Clerk shall docket Bailey's tendered Ame nded Complaint as Bailey's Fourth Amended Complaint. (3) Bailey's 1 Complaint and his Fourth Amended Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (4) Bailey's 12 Motion seeking a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. (5) Judgment will be entered contemporaneously with this MOO in favor of Dfts. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on October 24, 2014. (AWD) cc: Pla via US Mail
|
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
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.
