Thompson v. Clarke et al
7:2017cv00010 |
January 9, 2017 |
US District Court for the Western District of Virginia |
Roanoke Office |
Robert S. Ballou |
Norman K. Moon |
Prisoner: Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 226 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 3/6/2020. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(slt) |
Filing 178 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on March 30, 2019. (sfc) |
Filing 149 AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding 42 and 55 . Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 4/25/2018. (tvt) |
Filing 147 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 56 Motion for Summary Judgment ; The motion is DENIED as to Thompson's claim (2)(E) alleging that defendant Doss, in his individual capacity, failed to protect him from obtaining a razor in segregation to harm himself. The motion is GRANTED as to all other claims and defendants (Opinion and Order mailed to Pro Se Party). Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 3/31/2018. (tvt) |
Filing 142 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Norman K. Moon on 3/29/2018. (slt) |
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 Virginia Western 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: Thompson v. Clarke 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.