Franklin et al v. North Central Narcotics Task Force et al
| Robert Franklin and Shannon O'Quinn Franklin |
| North Central Narcotics Task Force, Claiborne County, Mississippi, Mario Grady, Cory Weatherspoon, Scott Stewart, William Nevels, The Claiborne County Sheriff's Department, Michael Wells and Doe Defendants 1-10 |
| 5:2015cv00120 |
| December 11, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
| Western Office |
| Claiborne |
| Michael T. Parker |
| David C. Bramlette |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Defendant |
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
73
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re Defendant Scott Stewart 70 . Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 2/13/2017 (EB)
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER granting 45 Motion for Qualified Immunity as to Robert and Shannon Franklin's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Claims. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 12/20/2016 (EB)
|
|
Filing
58
ORDER granting 42 Motion seeking Relief from Judgment, which the Court construes as a Motion to Amend the Complaint Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 11/17/2016 (EB)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER granting 32 Motion to require plaintiffs to file a Rule 7(a) reply; denying 5 Motion to Remand; granting 10 Motion for partial dismissal Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 7/7/2016 (ECW)
|
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.
