McQune v. Hutto
Plaintiff: Walter McQune
Defendant: Skyler Hutto
Case Number: 2:2017cv01747
Filed: June 30, 2017
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Charleston Office
County: Colleton
Presiding Judge: Mary Gordon Baker
Presiding Judge: Richard M Gergel
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
September 5, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 16 ORDER AND OPINION adopting in part and declining to adopt in part 13 Report and Recommendation. The complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court FINDS that the complaint is a frivolous filing and therefore counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This dismissal counts as a strike under the PLRA. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 9/5/2017.(ssam, )
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: McQune v. Hutto
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Walter McQune
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: Skyler Hutto
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?