Hopper v. Federal Medical Center Carswell
4:2020cv01208 |
July 27, 2021 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
Fort Worth Office |
Prisoner Pet/Other: Prison Condition |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 29 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: It is ORDERED that Hopper's motion /request for appointment of counsel included within her response (ECF No. 27 ) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that defendant Aimee Gardner's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 24 ) is GRANTED, such that all plaintiff Hopper's remaining claims against Aimee Gardner are DISMISSED with prejudice. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 3/10/2022) (twd) |
Filing 13 OPINION and ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A & 1915(e)(2)(B)... It is therefore ORDERED that all of plaintiff Polly Hoppers claims for relief, except for one claim against Counselor Gardner for deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 7/27/2021) (wxc) |
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 Texas Northern 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: Hopper v. Federal Medical Center Carswell | |
---|---|
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.