Smith v. Buck
Plaintiff: Demone Royelio Smith
Defendant: J. Buck
Case Number: 0:2012cv00163
Filed: January 20, 2012
Court: US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Office: DMN Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Janie S. Mayeron
Presiding Judge: Patrick J. Schiltz
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981
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
January 7, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 105 ORDER denying 97 Motion for Summary Judgment (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on January 7, 2015. (CLG)
May 22, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 63 ORDER granting 62 Application on Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal (Written Opinion). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis 62 is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff is ordered to pay an initial par tial filing fee of at least $33.29. 3. The remaining balance of the filing fee must be paid over time in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 4. A copy of this order shall be sent to plaintiff and to prison officials at the institution where plaintiff is currently confined. Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on May 22, 2013. (clg) cc: Demone Smith, Prison authority, and finace dept. along with fee due letter. Modified on 5/22/2013 (jam).
May 3, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 60 ORDER denying without prejudice 58 Application on Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal (Written Opinion). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis 58 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of the form "Motion and Affidavit for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis" to plaintiff. Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on May 3, 2013. (clg)
April 17, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 55 ORDER - Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 51 is GRANTED. The February 19, 2013 judgment 46 is VACATED. Plaintiff's objections 47 , 53 are OVERRULED and the R&R 41 is ADOPTED. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS.LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 04/17/13. (bjs) CC: Smith. (kt)
February 19, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 45 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation 41 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer 20 is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's lawsuit is hereby dismissed with prejudice. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on February 19, 2013. (clg) CC: Smith. (kt)
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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Smith v. Buck
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Demone Royelio Smith
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: J. Buck
Represented By: Stephanie A Angolkar
Represented By: Jon K Iverson
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?