Harris v. Copeland et al
Calvin Harris |
Officer Laury, South Carolina Department of Corrections, The and John Copeland |
2:2011cv02209 |
August 20, 2011 |
US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
Charleston Office |
Richland |
Bruce Howe Hendricks |
G Ross Anderson |
Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
Both |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 134 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 114 Motion in Limine. Defendants' seventh motion in limine is GRANTED. Defendants' other motions in limine are DENIED. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 9/26/2013.(ssam, ) |
Filing 132 ORDER adopting 124 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks; denying 99 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 105 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant Laury's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 99) is DENIED. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 105) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's state law claims. The motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff's federal claims. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 8/22/2013.(ssam, ) |
Filing 76 ORDER adopting 52 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, dismissing without prejudice 6 Motion to Dismiss and 23 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Serve. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff be given sixty (60) days from the date of this Order within which to serve Defendant Laury. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 4/16/12.(hhil, ) |
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.