Johnson v. Ofsack et al
| Buck Andrews Johnson |
| Michael Ofsack, Oklahoma County Sheriff, John Doe and Oklahoma Department of Corrections Director |
| 5:2007cv00211 |
| February 21, 2007 |
| U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma |
| Oklahoma City Office |
| Osage |
| Doyle W. Argo |
| Vicki Miles-LaGrange |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
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
79
ORDER: ADOPTS Report and Recommendations re 78 issued by the Magistrate Judge on April 29, 2009; and DISMISSES the action agnst dft Michael Ofsack and "John Doe-Officers, dfts 3,4,5 and 6" pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 5/29/09. (fp, )
|
|
Filing
78
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION For the reasons set forth above, it is recommended that all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Ofsak, and "John Doe-Officers, defendants 3, 4, 5, and 6" be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m ). Plaintiff is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by May 19, 2009; re 1 Complaint filed by Buck Andrews Johnson Objections to R&R due by 5/19/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Doyle W. Argo on 4/29/09. (sr, )
|
|
Filing
77
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 76 , denying (59) Roderick Robinson's motion to dismiss, denying 56 plaintiff's motion for summary judgment/default judgment, denying 71 plaintiff's motion to "Advance Cause for Summar y Judgment Against Defendant Michale A. Ofsak," denying (73) plaintiff's motion to require defense counsel to withdraw, granting 54 defendant Whetsel, in his individual capacity, motion to dismiss, and dismissing the action against defendant Whetsel in his individual capacity without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 3/3/2009. (ks)
|
|
Filing
76
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION it is recommended that the motion to dismiss ofDefendant Whetsel in his individual capacity [Doc. No. 54] be granted and that the action against him be dismissed without prejudice. It is further recommended that the motion t o dismiss of Defendant Robinson [Doc. No. 59] be denied. It is also recommended that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment/default judgment [Doc. No. 56] and Plaintiff's motion to "Advance Cause for Summary Judgment Against Defendant Michael A. Ofsak" [Doc. No. 71] be denied. Lastly, the Plaintiff's motion to require defense counsel to withdraw [Doc. No. 73] is denied. The parties are advised of their right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by February 23, 2009; This Report and Recommendation does not dispose of the issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Doyle W. Argo on 2/3/09. (sr, )
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 40 ; denying plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and motion for extension of time (docket no. 33), and plaintiff's motion to dismiss (docket no. 8) and motion to strike (docket no. 24); and granting defendant Oklahoma County Sheriff's motion for summary judgment in his official capacity (docket no. 25-26), and defendant DOC Director's motion for summary judgment (docket no. 21). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 2/4/2008. (ks)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Oklahoma Western 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.
