Young v. Humphrey

Young v. Humphrey

Plaintiff:	Michael Lenear Young, Sr.
Defendant:	Ms. Lea Humphrey
Case Number:	4:2014cv00131
Filed:	December 29, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
Office:	Owensboro Office
County:	Henderson
Presiding Judge:	Joseph H. McKinley
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
February 3, 2017	Filing 46 MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 2/3/2017: This action will be dismissed by separate order. cc: counsel, Plaintiff (pro se) (JBM)
March 25, 2015	Filing 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to amend the caption in the docket sheet to reflect Leah Humphrey, LPN, as the proper Defendant in this action.The official-capacity claims and the cl aims for injunctive relief against Defendant Humphrey are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.The individual-capacity claims for damages against Defendant Humphrey that she violated his right to refuse medical treatment and retaliated against him for exercising that right shall proceed. Because counsel has already entered an appearance for Defendant and Defendant has already answered the complaint, the Court concludes that Defendant has waived service and that service on Defendant by way of the U.S. Marshal is not necessary. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Counsel (JLS)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 3, 2017

Filing 46 MEMORANDUM OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 2/3/2017: This action will be dismissed by separate order. cc: counsel, Plaintiff (pro se) (JBM)

March 25, 2015

Filing 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to amend the caption in the docket sheet to reflect Leah Humphrey, LPN, as the proper Defendant in this action.The official-capacity claims and the cl aims for injunctive relief against Defendant Humphrey are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.The individual-capacity claims for damages against Defendant Humphrey that she violated his right to refuse medical treatment and retaliated against him for exercising that right shall proceed. Because counsel has already entered an appearance for Defendant and Defendant has already answered the complaint, the Court concludes that Defendant has waived service and that service on Defendant by way of the U.S. Marshal is not necessary. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Counsel (JLS)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Young v. Humphrey
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael Lenear Young, Sr.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Ms. Lea Humphrey
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| 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.

Why Is My Information Online?