Wright v. SC Highway Patrol et al
| Marcus Dwain Wright |
| SC Highway Patrol, BJ Sawyer and Officer 2 Unknown |
| 4:2015cv02442 |
| June 17, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Florence Office |
| Horry |
| R Bryan Harwell |
| Kaymani D West |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
91
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 87 ) is incorporated herein by reference. Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 38 ) is DENIED as moot and Plaintiff's motion to amend/correct his Complaint (ECF No. 77 ) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 7/6/2016. (mcot, )
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 24 ] of the Magistrate Judge. It is therefore ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff's complaint is pa rtially summarily DISMISSED with prejudice as to Defendant South Carolina Highway Patrol; and (2) the complaint shall be served on the remaining Defendants. The Court REFERS this matter back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 10/7/2015. (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.
