Williams v. Oregon Department of Corrections et al
| Kenneth Gregory Williams |
| Dr. Becker, Dr, Digner, Dr. John Doe #1, Dr. John Doe #2, Dr. Ole Ersson, David Gillies, Steve Gunderson, Dr, Ole Hansan, Dr. Greg Lytle, M.D., Multnomah County Sheriff Department, Oregon Department of Corrections, Ted Randell, Dr. Steve Shelton, M.D., Dr. S. Snider, Jennifer Stevans and Dr. Vargo |
| 3:2010cv00730 |
| June 24, 2010 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland Office |
| John V. Acosta |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
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
166
Opinion and Order - The County Defendants motion for summary judgment 67 is GRANTED. The State Defendants motion for summary judgment 122 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs motion to strike 152 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint 89 is DENIED. Plaintiffs motion for an audio-visual or telephone conference 159 is DENIED. This action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 1/3/12 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
|
|
Filing
72
OPINION and ORDER - For the reasons stated the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order contained in his Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 16th day of December, 2010, by U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown. (peg)
|
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 Oregon 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.
