Dawson v. Bush et al
| William Douglas Dawson, Jr |
| Denis Bush, Larry Cartledge and Florence Mauney |
| 4:2013cv02236 |
| August 19, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Florence Office |
| Anderson |
| David C Norton |
| Thomas E Rogers |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
124
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 112 Report and Recommendation and granting 83 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 59 Motion for New Trial; finding as moot 96 Motion for Relief from Judgment; denying 107 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 2/19/15.(elim, )
|
|
Filing
98
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 79 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 07/09/2014.(dsto, )
|
|
Filing
75
ORDER denying 72 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 73 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff is given fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order to file a Motion to Compel, pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure to address any deficiencies he contends are present in Defendants' responses to his discovery requests dated March 3, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 05/06/2014.(dsto, )
|
|
Filing
69
ORDER finding as moot 52 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 04/28/2014.(dsto, )
|
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.
