Kelly v. Madison Correctional Center et al
Plaintiff:
Christopher Ray Kelly
Defendant:
Madison Correctional Center, Jimmy Shivers, Forcht Wade Correctional Center, Warden Forcht Wade Correctional Center, Anthony Batson, Wayne Millus, Larry Cox, XYZ Insurance Company, Angie Willhite, Laura Smith, Medical Dir Forcht Wade Correctional Center and Steve Prator
Case Number:
3:2010cv01294
Filed:
August 4, 2010
Court:
Louisiana Western District Court
Office:
Monroe Office
County:
Allen
Referring Judge:
Karen L Hayes
Presiding Judge:
Robert G James
Nature of Suit:
Civil Rights
Cause of Action:
42:1983
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 |
|---|---|---|
| November 19, 2010 | 5 |
JUDGMENT ADOPTING 4 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's civil rights complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915 and 1915A. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 11/17/10. (crt,DickersonSld, D)
|
| October 13, 2010 | 4 |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by Christopher Ray Kelly, RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's civil rights complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. Objections to R&R due by 11/1/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 10/13/10. (crt,Crawford, A)
|
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 Louisiana 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.
