Butler v. Hinds County, Mississippi et al
| Reginald Butler and Jacobs Johnson |
| Hinds County, Mississippi, Hinds County Sheriff's Department, Tyrone Lewis and John Does 1-5 |
| 3:2018cv00326 |
| May 20, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
| Northern (Jackson) Office |
| Adams |
| F. Keith Ball |
| Daniel P. Jordan |
| Other 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
37
ORDER granting 34 Motion for Summary Judgment as stated in the Order. The remaining parties are directed to contact the chambers of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball within 10 days to set the case for a status or case-management conference, as appropriate. Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on March 20, 2020. (SP)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER granting 5 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting in part and denying in part 6 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for the reasons set out in the Order. Plaintiffs may file a motion seeking leave to amend within 14 days of the en try of this order. The parties are instructed to contact the chambers of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball within 14 days of the entry of this order to set the case for case-management conference. Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on September 17, 2018. (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.
