Hughes v. Rogersville City Police Department et al
Plaintiff: Martin Ellison Hughes
Defendant: Rogersville City Police Department, Joey Maddox and Charles Gibson
Case Number: 2:2014cv00140
Filed: May 9, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Office: Greeneville Office
County: Hawkins
Presiding Judge: J Ronnie Greer
Presiding Judge: Dennis H Inman
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
January 19, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 79 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions for discovery are DENIED [Docs. 71, 75]. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. Because Plaintiff has not shown cause as to why his lawsuit should not be dismissed as to Defendant Mathews, this case will be DISMISSED. Finally, all other pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 01/19/2017. (C/M to pro se Plaintiff) (AMP)
November 6, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 28 MEMORANDUM and ORDER: Plaintiff has paid the civil filing fee of four hundred dollars ($400) and therefore, his application to proceed without prepayment of fees, [Doc. 2], is DENIED as MOOT. His requests for dismissal of the c harges and damages are DENIED, and all claims related to his ongoing criminal prosecution are DISMISSED without prejudice. All the governmental Defendants (i.e., the Rogersville City Police Department, the Hawkins County Detention Facility, Sheriff L awson, Chief Deputy Allen, Chief Jailer Gallion, and Officers Maddox, Gibson, Johnson, Shanks, and Funk) are DISMISSED forfailure to state a claim against them. Defendants Britany L/N/U and Brian L/N/U are DISMISSED from this lawsuit. Because the cla ims against Defendants Southern Health Partners and Dr. Matthews are sufficiently substantial to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Court, the Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff two service packets. (Each packing contains a blank summons and USM 285 form.) (C/M of order and summons to Pro Se Filer as directed in Order). Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 11/6/2014. (LMC)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Tennessee Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hughes v. Rogersville City Police Department et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Martin Ellison Hughes
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Rogersville City Police Department
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Joey Maddox
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Charles Gibson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.


Why Is My Information Online?