Bey v. Supreme Court of South Carolina

Plaintiff: Sakima Bey
Defendant: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Case Number: 0:2013cv00957
Filed: April 10, 2013
Court: South Carolina District Court
Office: Rock Hill Office
County: Lancaster
Presiding Judge: Sol Blatt
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
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 31, 2013 18 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. The Plaintiff's objections, captioned as a "motion to dismiss" (Entry 16) are overruled; and this complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Sol Blatt, Jr on 5/30/2013.(cwhi, )

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 South Carolina District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bey v. Supreme Court of South Carolina
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Sakima Bey
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Supreme Court of South Carolina
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 [ 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.