Cleveland v. Evans Correctional Institution et al
| George Cleveland, III |
| Evans Correctional Institution, Willie Eagleton, Roland McFadden, Angie Graves, M Thomas, Nurse Manager, Medical Doctor and All employed at Evans Correctional or a contract employee |
| 4:2014cv02444 |
| June 19, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Florence Office |
| Marlboro |
| R Bryan Harwell |
| Thomas E Rogers |
| Prison:Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers |
| Both |
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
160
ORDER denying 151 Motion for the Printing of Record. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 12/07/2016.(dsto, )
|
|
Filing
148
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court overrules Plaintiff's objections and adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendationof the Magistrate Judge. (ECF # 131 ). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that both Plain tiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF # 117 ) and motion for protective order (ECF # 119 ) are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF # 86 ) is GRANTED in its entiretyand that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 03/07/2016. (dsto, )
|
|
Filing
138
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R (ECF No. 131 ) of the Magistrate Judge. It is therefore ORDERED that (1) Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 117 ) is DENIED; (2) Plaintiff's motion for a protective order (ECF No. 119 ) is DENIED; (3) Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is DENIED AS MOOT (ECF No. 127 ); (4)Plaintiff's motion to recuse (ECF No. 133 ) is DENIED ; and (5) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 86 ) is GRANTED in its entirety and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court directs the Clerk to CLOSE this case. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 12/15/2015. (dsto, )
|
|
Filing
105
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court hereby overrules Plaintiff's objections and adopts the Magistrate Judge's R&R 90 . IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's 79 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 06/24/2015. (dsto, )
|
|
Filing
100
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 62 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 06/17/2015.(dsto, )
|
|
Filing
64
ORDER. Plaintiff is hereby directed to provide to the Clerk of Court, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order, updated service forms with correct information/addresses for Defendant Officer M. Thomas should he desire to attempt service upon the named Defendant again. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 02/19/2015. (dsto, )
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 14 is adopted and incorporated by reference. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Graves is DISMISSED as a party defendant wi thout service of process. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff's claims related to his dissatisfaction with the available educational and vocational offerings while incarcerated are DISMISSED. Finally, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF No. 13 , is DENIED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 11/4/2014. (mcot, )
|
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.
