Anderson v. Eagleton et al
| Sherald Anderson |
| Willie L Eagleton, V Lovin and Doe Lucas |
| 4:2016cv02462 |
| July 6, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Florence Office |
| Marlboro |
| J Michelle Childs |
| Thomas E Rogers |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
131
JUDGMENT dismissing the action as to defendant Warden Willie L. Eagleton. (asni, )
|
|
Filing
107
ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL: Attorney Lindsay Anne Joyner for Sherald Anderson added. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/15/2018. (asni, )
|
|
Filing
87
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 74 ). It is therefore ordered that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 36 ) is DENIE D. The court further DENIES Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Officer Corporal V. Lovin (Vernon) and Defendant Officer Doe Lucas on the basis of qualified immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity. Finally, Defendant Warden Willie L. Eagleton is DISMISSED from this matter.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 09/15/2017. (dsto, )
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER denying 25 Motion to Compel; denying 27 Motion for Disposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 04/26/2017.(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.
