Allen v. Cartlidge et al
| David Wayne Allen |
| Mr Cartlidge, Unknown Defendant 1, Unknown Defendant 2, Unknown Defendant 3, Sumner, Officer Hawkins, Unknown Defendant 4, Unknown Defendant 5, Unknown Defendant 6, Unknown Defendant 7, Unknown Defendants, Doctor McCree, David Lovice, Rushton, NFN Deckron, Unknown Defendant 8 and Director Ozmint |
| 8:2008cv00600 |
| February 22, 2008 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Anderson/Greenwood Office |
| Lee |
| Henry F. Floyd |
| Bruce Howe Hendricks |
| Prison:Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers |
| 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
164
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 159 , granting 101 Motion for Summary Judgment to the extent that the federal claims are dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his admisinistrative remedies, and granting [10 6] Motion for Summary Judgment to the extent that the federal claims are dismissed on the merits with prejudice. In the event that Plaintiff has raised any state claims in the Complaint, those claims areDISMISSED without prejudice so that Plaintiff can pursue them in state court if he wishes to do so. All remaining motions are rendered moot; Order signed by Honorable Henry F Floyd on 3/29/2010. (ncha, )
|
|
Filing
159
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; It is recommended that the defendants' motions for summary judgment [Doc. 101, 106] should be GRANTED and all claims dismissed without prejudice for a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. To the extent the dis trict court finds that issues of fact exist as to exhaustion, the undersigned would alternatively recommend that summary judgment be GRANTED, in part, with prejudice, as to all claims except those against defendants Hawkins and Sumner for their alleged treatment of the plaintiff in the hospital, as described herein. As to those claims, the motion should be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 3/1/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks on 2/11/2010. (ncha, )
|
|
Filing
152
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 79 Report and Recommendations that defendant Lovice's 51 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff's action against Defendant Lovice is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Henry F Floyd on 9/10/09. (kmca)
|
|
Filing
89
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 78 Report and Recommendations that defendants' 26 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Ruth H Powell, Mr Cartlidge, Officer Hawkins, NFN Deckron, Sumner, Rushton, Director Ozmint, Doctor McCree, and 50 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Kyle Scates, M.D., should be Denied. Signed by Honorable Henry F Floyd on 3/23/09. (kmca)
|
|
Filing
79
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending 51 MOTION to Dismiss filed by David Lovice should be Granted and that the action should be dismissed as against Dr. David Lovice without prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 2/23/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks on 2/3/09. (kmca)
|
|
Filing
77
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 74 Report and Recommendations, that plaintiff's 59 and 4 Motions for a Preliminary Injunction are Denied. Signed by Honorable Henry F. Floyd on 2/2/09. (kmca) Modified on 2/3/2009: see 81 Order vacating (kmca).
|
|
Filing
74
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that plaintiff's 4 and 59 motions for a preliminary injunction be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 1/30/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks on 1/12/09. (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
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.
