Goss v. Stirling et al
Case Number: |
1:2018cv02124 |
Filed: |
August 15, 2019 |
Court: |
US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
Office: |
Aiken Office |
Nature of Suit: |
Prison:Prison Condition |
Cause of Action: |
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed |
Document Text |
June 15, 2021 |
Filing
329
ORDER adopting the 324 Report and Recommendation, and granting Defendant's 302 amended motion for summary judgment. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 6/15/2021. (lbak)
|
May 4, 2021 |
Filing
312
ORDER denying 279 Motion to Supplement; denying 279 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 304 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 309 Motion for Injunctive Relief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 5/4/2021. (lbak)
|
March 30, 2021 |
Filing
289
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 278 Third Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 3/30/2021. (lbak)
|
January 14, 2021 |
Filing
267
ORDER denying 266 MOTION to Amend/Correct. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 1/14/2021. (lbak)
|
January 5, 2021 |
Filing
264
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 253 motion to compel as moot and denying Plaintiff's 263 motion for sanctions. Defendant's responses to the discovery requests in complaint with this order are due by January 15, 2021. The parties shall conduct depositions of Plaintiff and his two witnesses by February 22, 2021. Dispositive motions are due by March 26, 2021. (Motions due by 3/26/2021) Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 1/5/2021. (lbak)
|
November 2, 2020 |
Filing
240
ORDER Plaintiff's 237 motion to conduct discovery is granted in part. Defendant will be allowed to notice the deposition of Manigault and will bear the costs of the deposition. Further, Defendant's request is granted in that Defendant will be allowed to cross-examine Manigault following Plaintiff's examination of Manigault. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 11/2/2020. (mmcd)
|
September 28, 2020 |
Filing
233
ORDER adopting the 191 Report and Recommendation, granting Plaintiff's voluntary 163 dismissal, thereby dismissing with prejudice all of Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants aside from his Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Cothran in his individual capacity; denying Defendants' 155 motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's remaining claim; denying as moot Plaintiff's 185 motion for preliminary junction; granting in part P laintiff's 200 motion for an extension of time to complete discovery and the Court remands this matter to the Magistrate Judge to determine the appropriate bounds and time limits for both parties to conduct additional, limited discovery; denyi ng Plaintiff's 221 motion to expedite; denying Plaintiff's 222 motion for injunctive relief; denying Plaintiff's 223 motion to supplement complaint and finding moot any remaining 226 motions. Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges added. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 9/28/2020. (lbak)
|
March 27, 2020 |
Filing
213
ORDER denying 198 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 3/26/2020. (lbak)
|
October 3, 2019 |
Filing
161
ORDER AND OPINION adopting the 146 Report and Recommendation and denying Plaintiff's 131 motion for peliminary injunction. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 10/3/2019. (lbak)
|
August 15, 2019 |
Filing
135
ORDER mooting 116 MOTION for Sanctions, denying 121 MOTION for Sanctions MOTION for Discovery and denying 130 MOTION for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 8/15/2019. (lbak)
|
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
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?