Smith v. Mitchell et al
Plaintiff: Shyheem Lee Smith
Defendant: M M Mitchell, L. Rosario and R. Blocker
Case Number: 4:2012cv01454
Filed: June 1, 2012
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Florence Office
County: XUS, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Mary G Lewis
Presiding Judge: Thomas E Rogers
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 26, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 31 JUDGMENT, by the Clerk. This case is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41b of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure. (dsto, )
May 31, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 9 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1)Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, Smiths constitutional claims against the FCI-Edgefield Defendants (M. M. Mitchell, Warden, FCI-Edgefield; L. Rosario, Health Care Administrator, FCI-Edgefield; and L. Bloc ker, Health Care Administrator, FCI-Edgefield) set forth in Smiths Complaint [R. 2 and Supplemental Complaint [R. 8 are SEVERED from this action and TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina for all furthe r disposition: 2) Smith's constitutional claims against the USP McCreary Dfts Stine, Gregorey, and K. Baker in their offical capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 3) Clerk prepare documents necessary for service; 3) Clerk prepare a "serv ice packet"; 4) Clerk make three sets of copies; 5) Clerk present the Service Packets and copies to USM Office in London, Kentucky; 6) Service of process upon dfts, Stine; L. Gregorey, and K. Baker shall be conducted by the USM in London by se rving a service packet personally upon each of them; USM responsible for ensuring that each dft is successfully served with process; 7) USM must complete service on the named dfts by serving by certified or registered mail; 8) Pla shall: a) Advise t he Clerk's Office of any change in address; b) Communicate solely through notices or motions filed w/the Clerk's Office; c) Every notice, motion, or paper be certified. Court will disregard any notice of motion which does not include this certification. Signed by Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 5/31/2012.(MRS)cc: COR, Pro Se Filer; [Transferred from Kentucky Eastern on 6/1/2012.]
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: Smith v. Mitchell 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: Shyheem Lee Smith
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: M M Mitchell
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: L. Rosario
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: R. Blocker
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?