Fields v. Richland County Sheriff's Department et al
Plaintiff: Benjamin P. Fields
Defendant: Richland County Sheriff's Department, Richland School District Two and Leon Lott
Case Number: 3:2017cv00443
Filed: February 13, 2017
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Columbia Office
County: Richland
Presiding Judge: Margaret B Seymour
Presiding Judge: Thomas E Rogers
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441
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
February 10, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 91 JUDGMENT by the clerk. This case is dismissed without prejudice. (dsto, )
August 22, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 52 ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court overrules Fields's objections, adopts the Report 45 , and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court the Sheriff's Department's 29 and the School District's 30 motions to dismiss are GRANTED and these two defendants are DISMISSED from the action. Accordingly, the only remaining claim is Fields's § 1983 claim against Lott. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 08/22/2018. (dsto, )
August 30, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER RULING ON 21 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court GRANTS Plaintiff's request to amend the complaint. An amended complaint should be filed no later than September 12, 2017. Defendants RCSD and Lott's motion t o dismiss is GRANTED in part as to Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against RCSD, DENIED in part as to Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against Defendant Lott, and DENIED AS MOOT and WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff's state law claims. Rich land Two's motion to dismiss the state law claims is DENIED AS MOOT and WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The matter is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for additional pretrial handling. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 08/30/2017. (dsto, )
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: Fields v. Richland County Sheriff's Department 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: Benjamin P. Fields
Represented By: James Lewis Cromer
Represented By: Ryan Kyle Hicks
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: Richland County Sheriff's Department
Represented By: Vance J Bettis
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: Richland School District Two
Represented By: Thomas Kennedy Barlow
Represented By: Jasmine Rogers Drain
Represented By: Kathryn Long Mahoney
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: Leon Lott
Represented By: Vance J Bettis
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?