Abdur-Rahiim v. Doe et al
Muhsin H. Abdur-Rahiim |
John Doe, Michael W. McDonald and John/Jane Doe's |
7:2008cv00224 |
December 10, 2008 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) Office |
Martin |
Pro Se |
Amul R. Thapar |
None |
U.S. Government Defendant |
28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 8 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Muhsin H. Abdur-Rahiim's Motion for Reconsideration 7 is GRANTED; (2) Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order and contemporaneous Judgment of 1/27/2009 5 & 6 are SET ASIDE and shall be held for NAUGHT; (3) All claims asserted against Dr. Michael W. McDonald or any other Dfts residing in Kentucky arising from the 2/14/2005 surgery are DISMISSED, because it appears from Plas motion that he is no longer pursuing these claims; (4) This action shall be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for all further proceedings. Case reopened. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar. (TDA) cc: COR & USDC District of New Jersey |
Filing 6 JUDGMENT: (1) Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants. (2) The claims asserted by the Plaintiff are DISMISSED. (3) This matter is STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. (4) This is a FINAL and APPEALABLE Judgment, and there is no just cause for delay. (5) The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar. (TDA)cc: Muhsin H. Abdur-Rahiim |
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.