SMITH v. ROGERS et al
| HARRY G. SMITH, JR. |
| LLOYD GENE ROGERS, JR., MARK YINGLING, RAY BAKER, BROOKE ECHARD, JOSEPH FOX, JUSTIN SHRIVER, PAUL KIFER, MICHAEL M. JOHNSTON and BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA |
| 3:2015cv00264 |
| October 12, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Johnstown Office |
| Blair |
| Kim R. Gibson |
| Keith A. Pesto |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
34
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - upon the Court having conducted an in camera review of the PADOC report and for the reasons explained in the memorandum opinion accompanying this order, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows: On or before July 24, 2017, Blai r County will produce the PADOC report and related materials (BLAIR1328-83) to Smith and unredact the following portions: The top paragraph of the Management Concerns section on BLAIR1339. The full paragraph of the Conclusion section on BLAIR1339. All of BLAIR1337. The last paragraph on BLAIR1341, which begins" A copy.... ", and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 7/10/2017. (dlg)
|
|
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion to Compel, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 2/9/2017. (dlg)
|
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 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.
