Wiles v. Ozmint et al
| Shaun Wayne Wiles |
| Jon E Ozmint, Robert Ward, James Sligh, Bernard McKie, Russell Campble, Michael Beinor and John Solomon |
| 9:2009cv00634 |
| March 12, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Beaufort Office |
| Richland |
| Cameron McGowan Currie |
| Bristow Marchant |
| None |
| 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
128
OPINION AND ORDER denying 125 Motion to Alter Judgment. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 4/18/11.(rpol, )
|
|
Filing
121
ORDER ADOPTING 108 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and granting 77 Motion for Summary Judgment. This matter is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 2/9/11.(rpol, )
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 36 and 37 . Defendants' motion for summary judgment 23 is granted with respect to any claim being asserted in the case at bar contesting the constitutionality of SCDCs twenty-four hour cell illumin ation policy as to any alleged effects on Plaintiff prior to the entry of judgment in Wiles I. Defendants' motion is denied as to Plaintiff's claims allegedly arising since the conclusion of his previous lawsuit. Defendants' motion i s also denied with respect to Plaintiff's allegations relating to being housed with mentally ill inmates. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction 14 is denied. This matter is re-referred to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 10/20/09. (rpol, ) Modified docket text on 10/20/2009 (rpol, ).
|
|
Filing
37
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant that the Defendants' Motion for summary judgment 23 on the grounds of res judicata be granted with respect to any claim being asserted in the case at bar contesting the constituti onality of the SCDC's twenty-four hour cell illumination policy, or how this policy has been applied to the Plaintiff and/or any resulting effects on the Plaintiff of this policy prior to the entry of judgment in Plaintiff's previous case. However, Defendants' motion should be denied, and Plaintiff should be allowed to continue with his cell illumination claim, to the extent he is asserting that his incarceration under this condition has resulted in serious mental or physical prob lems since the decision in his previous case. The Defendants' motion should also be denied with respect to Plaintiff's claims concerning being housed with mentally ill inmates. Objections to R&R due by 9/4/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant on 8/18/09. (rpol, )
|
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.
