Thomas v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al
| Charles Edward Thomas |
| South Carolina Department of Corrections, Jon Ozmint, Medical Division and Financial Records |
| 0:2014cv00302 |
| February 5, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Rock Hill Office |
| Marlboro |
| Paige J Gossett |
| David C Norton |
| Prison Condition |
| 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
32
ORDER reopening the period for filing a notice of appeal. Petitioner shall have 14 days from the filing date of this order to re-file a notice of appeal. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 4/13/15. (akob, )
|
|
Filing
19
JUDGMENT / The court has ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice. (abuc)
|
|
Filing
18
ORDER affirming 14 Report and Recommendation, dismissing amended complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 5/27/2014.(eric, )
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER directing Clerk not to authorize service and advising plaintiff to notify Clerk in writing of any change of address. Plaintiff has incurred a debt to the U.S.A. in the amount of $350.00. Motions granted: 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Restricted Access) filed by Charles Edward Thomas. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J Gossett on 5/12/2014. (abuc)
|
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 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.
