Geissler v. Patterson et al
| Russell Geissler |
| Dennis Bush, Brian Smith, McClean and Lisa Young |
| 4:2017cv00236 |
| January 25, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Florence Office |
| Saluda |
| Margaret B Seymour |
| Thomas E Rogers |
| Civil Rights |
| 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
187
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 160 Motion to Compel; granting 161 Motion for Issuance of Subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 03/12/2018.(dsto, )
|
|
Filing
162
ORDER granting 157 Motion to Substitute Party. Plaintiff is instructed to file one complete complaint to include all allegations within twenty-one days from the date of this order. Any incorporation by reference to prior pleadings, complaints, amendments, supplemental complaints, or another filing will not be sufficient and will be void. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 01/10/2018.(dsto, )
|
|
Filing
147
ORDER RULING ON 118 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court has thoroughly reviewed the record. In the court's view, fairness dictates that the Marshals Service attempt service of the second amended complaint on Defendant Smith at the residence where Defendant Smith was served via his roommate. The Clerk of Court is directed to prepare a summons and the attention of the Marshals Service is directed to ECF No. 142 for such information as may be pertinent. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (ECF No. 109 ) is denied,without prejudice. The case is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial handling.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 11/15/2017. (dsto, )
|
|
Filing
104
ORDER granting Defendant's part of the Motion 78 for More Definite Statement. Plaintiff is instructed to file one complete complaint to include all allegations within thirty days from the date of this order. Any incorp oration by reference to prior pleadings, complaints, amendments, supplemental complaints, or another filing will not be sufficient and will be void. Defendants' part of the MOTION 78 TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND 34 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM are both deemed moot, and Plaintiff's Motion 88 for Summary Judgment is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 08/15/2017.(dsto)
|
|
Filing
100
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation 91 that Plaintiff's motion be construed as a voluntary dismissal. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Defendant Sterling (ECF No. 79 ) is granted, without prejudice. The case is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial handling.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 08/14/2017. (dsto, )
|
|
Filing
65
ORDER granting 38 Motion to Amend/Correct provided Plaintiff files his proposed amended complaint within twenty days from the date of this order; denying Motion to Stay Discovery 47 . Defendants shall have thirty days from the date of this Order to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests; granting 57 Motion for Copies and the Clerk of Court is directed to forward Plaintiff said copies; denying 58 Motion to Present Compelling Witnesses and Time extention or Continuance; and denied as moot 59 Motion to Compel discovery requests. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 06/09/2017.(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.
