Washington v. Tubls et al
Plaintiff: Rudolph Washington
Defendant: Tubls and Michael Coleman
Case Number: 3:2013cv00217
Filed: January 24, 2013
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
Office: Monroe Office
County: Ouachita
Presiding Judge: Karen L Hayes
Presiding Judge: Robert G James
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
October 9, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 108 JUDGMENT: The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge having been considered, together with the written objections thereto filed with this Court, and, after a de novo review of the record, finding that the Magistrate Judges Report and Reco mmendation is correct and that judgment as recommended therein is warranted, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Motion for Judgment on Partial Findings, [Doc. No. 100], filed by Defendant Major Tubbs, be GRANTED and that judgment be enter ed in favor of Defendant, thereby DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs complaint in its entirety. In the alternative, based on all of the testimony and evidence elicited at the Flowers hearing, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Judgment be entered in favor of Defendant, thereby DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs complaint in its entirety. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 10/8/14. (crt,DickersonSld, D)
June 2, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 85 JUDGMENT ADOPTING 82 Report and Recommendation re 78 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Motion for Summary Judgment and Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Major Tubbs and Lt. Coleman i s GRANTED, that Plaintiff's Complaint 1 14 and 15 against Defendant Coleman is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety, and that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Tubbs for failure to provide medical care and for loss of property be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's excessive force claim against Defendant Tubbs remains pending. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 6/2/14. (crt,DickersonSld, D)
December 19, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 56 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 42 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 12/19/13. (crt,DickersonSld, D)
September 19, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 31 ORDER denying 26 Motion for Reconsideration of 11 Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 9/19/13. (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 this case: Washington v. Tubls et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Tubls
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: Michael Coleman
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 ]
Plaintiff: Rudolph Washington
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?