Berryhill v. Jones et al

Berryhill v. Jones et al

Petitioner:	Lavern Berryhill
Respondent:	Justin Jones
Case Number:	5:2011cv01513
Filed:	December 29, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
Office:	Oklahoma City Office
County:	Pittsburg
Presiding Judge:	Doyle W. Argo
Presiding Judge:	Timothy D. DeGiusti
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2241
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 17, 2012	Filing 53 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Doc. 46 filed on July 26, 2012 and in so doing, GRANTS Jones' Motion to Dismiss Doc. 16 filed on January 27, 2012,(a) DISMISSES sua sponte Berryhill's allegations of racial animosity and a racia lly-charged plot (Claim 1) as frivolous and his allegations regarding a misconduct report in 2011 (Claim 3) as moot; and (b) GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Jones on Berryhill's claim. ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation Doc. 47 filed on July 26, 2012. Adopts the Report and Recommendation Doc. 48 filed July 26, 2012, and thereby DENIES as moot Berryhill's Motion for Summary Judgment Doc. 26 file-stamped February 20, 2012 and AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Bacharach's rulings w ith regard to Berryhill's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and Production of Video Tape Doc. 21 file-stamped February 7, 2012, and his Motion for Certification of Question to Oklahoma Supreme Court Doc. 34 file-stamped May 7,2012; ORDERS that judgment in accordance with the instant Order issue forthwith. See order for specifics. Signed by Honorable Lee R. West on 8/17/12. (pw, )

Date Filed

Document Text

August 17, 2012

Filing 53 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Doc. 46 filed on July 26, 2012 and in so doing, GRANTS Jones' Motion to Dismiss Doc. 16 filed on January 27, 2012,(a) DISMISSES sua sponte Berryhill's allegations of racial animosity and a racia lly-charged plot (Claim 1) as frivolous and his allegations regarding a misconduct report in 2011 (Claim 3) as moot; and (b) GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Jones on Berryhill's claim. ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation Doc. 47 filed on July 26, 2012. Adopts the Report and Recommendation Doc. 48 filed July 26, 2012, and thereby DENIES as moot Berryhill's Motion for Summary Judgment Doc. 26 file-stamped February 20, 2012 and AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Bacharach's rulings w ith regard to Berryhill's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and Production of Video Tape Doc. 21 file-stamped February 7, 2012, and his Motion for Certification of Question to Oklahoma Supreme Court Doc. 34 file-stamped May 7,2012; ORDERS that judgment in accordance with the instant Order issue forthwith. See order for specifics. Signed by Honorable Lee R. West on 8/17/12. (pw, )

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Oklahoma Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Berryhill v. Jones et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Lavern Berryhill
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Justin Jones
Represented By:	Ronald A Anderson
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?