Helms v. Sorenson et al
Plaintiff: Michael S Helms
Defendant: Doctor Sorenson and Shirley Stouffer
Case Number: 5:2014cv01003
Filed: September 17, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
Office: Oklahoma City Office
County: Comanche
Presiding Judge: Shon T. Erwin
Presiding Judge: Lee R. West
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
May 24, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 72 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 71 Report and Recommendation; grants 57 Sorenson and Stouffer's Motion for Summary Judgment; denies 65 Helms' Application for Appointed Counsel; orders that judgment in favor of defendants issue forthwith. Signed by Honorable Lee R. West on 05/24/16. (jy)
December 10, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 67 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 59 Report and Recommendation; denies 28 Helms' Motion to Proceed Forward and File Supplemental Information Regarding Retaliatory Clause; denies 42 Helms' request that the Court award him punitive and monetary damages, and 44 Helms' Request for Entry of Default; denies without prejudice 51 Helms' request for the Court's help in obtaining copies of his medical records; denies 53 Helms' request for some kind of justice and protective measures; denies any request by Helms to amend his complaint to assert claims based upon medical issues and medical care treatment unrelated to the claims in this lawsuit; re-refers matter to Magistrate Judge Erwin for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Lee R. West on 12/10/15. (jy)
April 28, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 25 Supplemental Report and Recommendation; denies 14 defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed by Shirley Stouffer, Doctor Sorenson; re-refers mater to Magistrate Judge Erwin for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Lee R. West on 04/28/15. (jy)
April 7, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 22 Report and Recommendation as to Magistrate Judge Erwin's findings and recommendations regarding exhaustion and whether the defendants qualify as actors for purposes of section 1983--findings an d recommendations that were not challenged by the defendants in their 23 Objection to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation; finds matter should be RE-REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Erwin for further proceedings, as set forth in the Order. Signed by Honorable Lee R. West on 04/07/15. (jy)
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: Helms v. Sorenson et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael S Helms
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 ]
Defendant: Doctor Sorenson
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 ]
Defendant: Shirley Stouffer
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?