Shine v. Hofmann et al

Shine v. Hofmann et al

Case Number:	2:2006cv00237
Filed:	December 1, 2006
Court:	US District Court for the District of Vermont
Office:	Burlington Office
Presiding Judge:	Jerome J. Niedermeier
Presiding Judge:	William K. Sessions
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition)
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
July 22, 2009	Filing 90 ORDER ADOPTING 88 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 68 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. All claims are dismissed with the exception of claims relating to the alleged assault by dft Burham; 61 motion for a pre-trial conference, 62 motion for appointment of counsel and 63 motion in limine are DENIED without prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED because the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of denial of a federal right. Furthermore, it is certified that any appeal of this matter would not be taken in good faith, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Signed by Judge William K. Sessions III on 7/22/2009. (jam) Text clarified on 7/22/2009
June 17, 2009	Filing 88 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending that the defendants' 68 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment be granted, and that all claims be dismissed with the exception of the claims relating to the alleged assault by Defendant Burnham. ORDERED: Shine's 61 REQUEST for a Pretrial Confrence, 62 MOTION for the Appointment of Counsel, and 63 MOTION in Limine are DENIED without prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 7/6/2009. Signed by Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier on 6/17/09. (hbc)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 22, 2009

Filing 90 ORDER ADOPTING 88 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 68 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. All claims are dismissed with the exception of claims relating to the alleged assault by dft Burham; 61 motion for a pre-trial conference, 62 motion for appointment of counsel and 63 motion in limine are DENIED without prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED because the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of denial of a federal right. Furthermore, it is certified that any appeal of this matter would not be taken in good faith, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Signed by Judge William K. Sessions III on 7/22/2009. (jam) Text clarified on 7/22/2009

June 17, 2009

Filing 88 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending that the defendants' 68 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment be granted, and that all claims be dismissed with the exception of the claims relating to the alleged assault by Defendant Burnham. ORDERED: Shine's 61 REQUEST for a Pretrial Confrence, 62 MOTION for the Appointment of Counsel, and 63 MOTION in Limine are DENIED without prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 7/6/2009. Signed by Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier on 6/17/09. (hbc)

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 Vermont District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Shine v. Hofmann et al
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.

Why Is My Information Online?