Canty v. Hipp et al
Plaintiff: Jamon Canty
Defendant: Deborah Hipp
Case Number: 2:2010cv02777
Filed: October 28, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Charleston Office
County: Horry
Presiding Judge: Cameron McGowan Currie
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 13, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 33 JUDGMENT: The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks is accepted. This case is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Plaintiff shall take nothing on his case filed pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (hhil, )
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: Canty v. Hipp et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jamon Canty
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Deborah Hipp
Represented By: John B McCutcheon, Jr
Represented By: Lisa Arlene Thomas
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.


Why Is My Information Online?