Petrovic v. USA
| Jovica Petrovic |
| USA, FMC - Lexington Officer Goodwin and FMC - Lexington Officer Lawrenz |
| 5:2016cv00167 |
| May 27, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Lexington Office |
| Fayette |
| Karen K. Caldwell |
| P SO |
| Prison Condition |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1346 |
| None |
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
32
OPINION & ORDER: 1. The defendant's 16 Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in full; 2. The plaintiff's claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680, again st the United States defendant is DISMISSED without prejudice; 3. The plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 against Officers Goodwin and Lawrenz defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice; 4. The plaintiff's objec tions (DE 24 , 26 ) to Magistrate Judge Ingram's report & recommendations are DISMISSED with prejudice; 5. The plaintiff's 27 motion for criminal prosecution for perjury is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 9/21/2017.(KM)cc: COR, Pltf via U.S. Mail
|
|
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: (1) Federal constitutional claims asserted by Pla against Dfts Goodwin and Lawrence, in their individual capacities, are DENIED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can granted: (a) Petrovics Fif th Amendment claims alleging the denial of due process; (b) Petrovics First Amendment claims alleging the denial of freedom of speech; and (c) Petrovics Fourth Amendment claims alleging unreasonable search and seizure. (2) Petrovics Eighth Amendment individual capacity claims against Dft Goodwin and Lawrence, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs SHALL PROCEED, and Dfts must respond to those Eighth Amendment claims. (3) Petrovics FTCA claims against the USA, alleging negl igence and tortious conduct under Kentucky common law, SHALL PROCEED, and the USA must respond to those claims. (4) Clerk shall PREPARE a Service Packet for Dfts Goodwin and Lawrence and the USA. Service Packet shall include summons, 1 Complaint an d all attachments, this Order and USM 285. (5) Clerk shall SEND the Service Packets to USM in Lexington, KY. (6) USM shall SERVE Dfts Goodwin and Lawrence, FMC-Lexington Officers. (7) USM shall serve USA. (8) USM is responsible for ensuring that Dfts Goodwin and Lawrence are successfully served with process. (9) Within 40 days, USM shall send a Service Report to the Lexington Clerks Office for filing, which states whether service has been accomplished with respect to Dfts Goodwin and Lawrence. ( 10) Petrovic must immediately advise the Clerks Office of any change in his current mailing address. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this case. (11) Petrovic must communicate with the Court solely through notices/motions. Court will disr egard correspondence sent directly to the undersigneds chambers. (12) With every notice/motion filed with the Court, Petrovic must (a) mail a copy to each Dft (or his/her attorney); and (b) at the end of the notice/motion, certify that he has mailed a copy to each Dft and the date on which this was done. Court will disregard any notice/motion which does not include this certification. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on December 19, 2016. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on December 19, 2016. (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.
