Goss v. Stirling et al
| 6:2018cv03245 |
| August 23, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Greenville Office |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers |
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
237
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 216 . Defendants' motions for summary judgment (ECF No. 166 &176) are GRANTED. Plaintiffs motion to expedite consideration (ECF No. 219) is DENIED as moot. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED in its entirety. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 12/2/2020. (kric, )
|
|
Filing
180
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 142 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed by Darrell L Goss. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 142) is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 10/8/2019. (kric, )
|
|
Filing
156
ORDER adopting 140 Report and Recommendation. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (ECF No. 136 ) is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/23/19. (kmca)
|
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
| Search for this case: Goss v. Stirling et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
