White et al v. McMillin et al
| Christine White, Harold Stiff, CW, KS, CS, HS, AS, AW, SS and John Does 1-10 |
| Malcolm E. McMillin, Hinds County, Ms. and John Does 1-10 |
| 3:2009cv00120 |
| February 27, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| Hinds |
| Daniel P. Jordan |
| James C. Sumner |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Civil Rights Act |
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
46
ORDER denying 31 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 36 Motion Hold in Abeyance re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment; denying 40 Motion to Amend/Correct as set out in the order. Because the case jumped off track at an early stage, and because of the various procedural issues, the parties are instructed to set the matter for an in-person case-management conference at which point the Magistrate Judge will enter an amended case-management order. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on August 11, 2011. (SP)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER granting 4 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated in the order, Defendant McMillin in his individual capacity is entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs' claims. The stay in this matter is lifted, and the parties are directed to contact the magistrate judge within 14 days to set a case management conference. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on July 2, 2010. (SP)
|
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 Mississippi Southern 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.
