Shaffer v. Campbell et al
| Christopher R. Shaffer |
| Tom D. Campbell, Prison Health Services, Inc., Edgars and Furman |
| 3:2007cv00630 |
| December 12, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky |
| Louisville Office |
| Jefferson |
| Charles R. Simpson |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
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
57
ORDER by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 7/14/2010; for the reasons set forth in 56 Memorandum Opinion, 45 Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Jeremiah Furman is GRANTED. The claims against Defendant Jeremiah Furman are DISMISSED with prejudice, and the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate him as a party. cc:Plaintiff, pro se, Counsel (SC)
|
|
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 6/22/09; for the reasons set forth, the Court will allow the Eighth Amendment and state-law negligence claims for damages to proceed against Defendants Campbell and Prison Health Services, In c. The Court will further allow the Eighth Amendment claims to proceed against Defendants Furman and Edgars. The Court will enter a separate Scheduling Order governing the development of the remaining claims and will enter a separate Order dismissing all other claims.cc:Plaintiff, pro se, Defendants, Jefferson County Attorney (SC)
|
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 Western 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.
