Brooks v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al
| Robert D Brooks |
| South Carolina Department of Corrections, Kershaw Correctional Institution, David Dunlap, Edward Bittinger, FNU Faulkenberry and Dottie Stonebreaker |
| 6:2018cv00632 |
| March 7, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Greenville Office |
| Greenville |
| Kevin McDonald |
| Margaret B Seymour |
| 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
65
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 42 , 55 . The court adopts the Report and Recommendation in part and declines to adopt in part, as described herein. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendants motion for summary judgment is granted in part as follows: summary judgment will enter for Defendants Dunlap, Stonebreaker, and Faulkenberry on the due process and false imprisonment claims, and will enter for Defendant Bittinger on the false imprisonment claim. Defendants motion for summary judgment is otherwise denied. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 3/13/2019. (kric, )
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 15 . Plaintiffs complaint is summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to SCDC and KCI only Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 6/1/2018. (kric, )
|
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.
