Thomas v. Dakota County Law Enforcement Center et al
| Desean Lamont Thomas |
| Dakota County Law Enforcement Center, Minnesota Department of Corrections, James Bzoskie, Loren Hanson, Dakota County Correctional Officer #416, Heart, Wimphery #224 and Fluxe |
| 0:2015cv02197 |
| April 29, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| Dakota |
| Hildy Bowbeer |
| John R. Tunheim |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
220
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's Request for Permission to Proceed & Refute Bill of Costs 209 ; OVERRULING Plaintiff's Objection 212 ; DENYING without prejudice as moot Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Writ O Cert iorari with U.S. Supreme Court 215 ; DENYING Plaintiff's Request for Entitled One Free Copy 216 ; DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Motion for Revival, Motion to Stay Cost 219 (Written Opinion) Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on 11/21/2017. (JMK)
|
|
Filing
204
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 171 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 178 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment; Adopting Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 198 ; and overruling Plaintiff's objections 199 and 201 . (Written Opinion) Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on 08/14/2017. (JMK)
|
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 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.
