Ball v. Powley et al
Plaintiff: |
Dawn Ball |
Defendant: |
Powley, Sisley, T. Peterson and Troy Edwards |
Case Number: |
1:2011cv01832 |
Filed: |
October 4, 2011 |
Court: |
US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Office: |
Harrisburg Office |
County: |
Lycoming |
Presiding Judge: |
Martin C. Carlson |
Presiding Judge: |
Yvette Kane |
Nature of Suit: |
Civil Rights |
Cause of Action: |
42 U.S.C. § 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 |
December 3, 2013 |
Filing
97
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Magistrate Judge Carlsons Report and Recommendation of October 8, 2013, (Doc. No. 93) is ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiffs objections (Doc. No. 94) are OVERRULED; 3. Plaintiffs complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute; and 4. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case. 93 Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 12/2/13. (sc)
|
July 10, 2012 |
Filing
80
MEMORANDUM ORDER - We will DENY these objections which we construe as motions to reconsider. Ball is directed to continue to comply with the filing deadlines previously set by this Court and IT IS ORDERED that any requests for continuance or stay mus t be made individually by Ball in each of her cases along with factual averments specific to each particular case identifying the deadline she wishes to extend or stay, and explaining why a stay or continuance is necessary.Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on 07/10/12. (pjr)
|
June 28, 2012 |
Filing
78
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 74 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION is ADOPTED and DFts 59 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to pltf's right to file an amdcmp w/i 20 days of the date of this order. Signed by Chief Judge Yvette Kane on June 28, 2012. (sc)
|
June 20, 2012 |
Filing
77
ORDER denying 75 Motion to Stay - IT IS ORDERED that any requests for continuance or stay must be made individually by Ball in each of her cases along with factual averments specific to each particular case identifying the deadline she wishes to extend or stay, and explaining why a stay or continuance is necessary. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on 06/20/12. (pjr)
|
March 6, 2012 |
Filing
55
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R 48 is ADOPTED AND Dft's 20 Motion is DENIED. Pltf is placed on notice that if any of her pending suits are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted that such a dismissal would constitute a "third strike". Signed by Chief Judge Yvette Kane on March 6, 2012. (sc)
|
January 6, 2012 |
Filing
43
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - for the foregoing reasons, the following discovery motions filed by the plaintiff, Dawn Ball in violation of this Courts prior stay orders; namely Balls Motions to Take Inmate Declarations; Motions for Examination by Ou tside Specialists; Motions to Test Mold Samples; and Motions to Order SCI Muncy to Release Records are DENIED, without prejudice to the parties pursuing appropriate discovery once the pending, and potentially dispositive, motions to revoke in forma p auperis status are resolved. It is further ORDERED that The plaintiffs motions for Stays of Briefing of the Motions to Revoke Balls In Forma Pauperis status are DENIED with prejudice. Finally Ball is advised that further failures to comply with the Court orders may result in dismissal of these actions pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on January 6, 2012. (kjn )
|
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 Pennsylvania Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?