Thurman v. Oklahoma County Commissioners et al
| Marcus Thurman |
| Oklahoma County Commissioners, FNU Miller, Unknown Individual(s), Oklahoma University Medical Center and Travis Redman |
| 5:2017cv00950 |
| September 5, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma |
| Oklahoma City Office |
| Cleveland |
| Shon T. Erwin |
| Vicki Miles-LaGrange |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
119
ORDER. The Court liberally construes this document as presenting a notice of appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(a). Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has not submitted a trust-account statement and has not otherwise shown an inability to prepay his appellate filing fee, and his request to proceed in forma pauperis is therefore DENIED. Signed by Judge Charles Goodwin on 12/14/2022. (jb)
|
|
Filing
116
ORDER denying 115 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Marcus Thurman. Signed by Judge Charles Goodwin on 11/18/2022. (jb)
|
|
Filing
112
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 106 Report and Recommendation, and granting 87 SECOND MOTION for Summary Judgment, filed by FNU Miller. A separate judgment shall be entered. Signed by Honorable Charles Goodwin on 07/21/2021. (jjs)
|
|
Filing
108
ORDER. Plaintiff's deadline to object to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 106 ) is extended to June 15, 2021. Signed by Honorable Charles Goodwin on 05/25/2021. (jb)
|
|
Filing
90
ORDER ADOPTING 75 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Defendant Unknown Oklahoma University Medical Center Radiologist is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 77 ) and Motion for Clarification (Doc. No. 79 ) are DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable Charles Goodwin on 08/12/2020. (jb)
|
|
Filing
68
ORDER denying 63 Motion for Reconsideration and denying as moot 65 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Honorable Charles Goodwin on 12/20/2019. (jb)
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER ADOPTING 53 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Defendant Redmon's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 51 ) is GRANTED. The portion of the March 15, 2018 Order (Doc. No. 15 ) purporting to dismiss state law negligence claims with prejudi ce is STRICKEN. The Court clarifies that the March 15, 2018 Order dismisses with prejudice Plaintiffs § 1983 claims of inadequate medical care against Defendants Redman and an unidentified radiologist insofar as those claims are predicated on allegations of negligence. Signed by Honorable Charles Goodwin on 07/24/2019. (jb)
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER ADOPTING 47 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and denying 42 Motion for Default Judgment filed by Marcus Thurman. Plaintiff is granted an extension of time of 60 days from the date of this Order, or until June 3, 2019, to effect service of process upon Defendant Miller in this action. Signed by Honorable Charles Goodwin on 04/04/2019. (jb)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 41 of Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin and grants the County's motion to dismiss 29 ; the excess force claim against Oklahoma County is dismissed without prejudice; plaintiff is granted leave to file within 14 days an amended complaint setting out any basis he may have for the county's liability for any excess force shown to have been used by defendant Miller. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 11/28/2018. (lam)
|
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 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.
