Harris v. Ryant et al
| Nathaniel S Harris |
| Chindar Ryant, Jeffrey S Campbell and Spartanburg City Police Department |
| 7:2018cv00716 |
| March 15, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Spartanburg Office |
| Spartanburg |
| Timothy M Cain |
| Kevin McDonald |
| 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
24
Order ruling on 14 Report and Recommendation: After a thorough review of the Report and the entire record in this case in accordance with the standard set forth above, the court adopts the magistrate judges Report (ECF No . 14) to the extent that it is consistent with this Order and incorporates it herein. However, the court finds that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate as to the claims against Defendants Ryant and Campbell because Plaintiff has been given an opp ortunity to amend his Complaint to cure the insufficiencies but failed to do so. Accordingly, all claims against Defendants Ryant and Campbell are DISMISSED with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Because Plaintiff has voluntaril y asked that his claims against Spartanburg City Police Department be dismissed, those claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 2/26/2019. (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.
