Redding v. Hanlon et al
| Nico Redding |
| Jan Hanlon, Sgt. Starkson, Officer Peine, Lt. Krogh, Warden Stender, J. Carter, Nanette Larson, Warden Roehrick and Kim Clifford |
| 0:2007cv01576 |
| April 23, 2007 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| Rice |
| Raymond L. Erickson |
| Donovan W. Frank |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
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
69
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 68 Report and Recommendation (Written Opinion). The Motion of the Defendants to Dismiss, or for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 53 ) is GRANTED. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 2/17/09. (GMO)
|
|
Filing
44
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION That the Motion of the Defendants to Dismiss 9 be GRANTED in all respects except for the Plaintiff's claim, that the Defendants Officer Peine, and Jan Hanlon, denied him equal protection as to his bookshelf, medical a ccommodations, and discipline, and that the Defendants Warden Stender, CPD J. Carter, Nanette Larson, Warden Roehrich, and Lt. Krogh failed to properly supervise and control Officer Peine and Jan Hanlon in this respect, which should be allowed to proceed. Objections to R&R due by 2/25/2008. Signed by Chief Mag. Judge Raymond L. Erickson on 02/06/2008. (jz)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Minnesota 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.
