Kelly v. West Virginia Regional Jail Correctional Facility Authority et al
| Farrell G. Kelly |
| West Virginia Regional Jail Correctional Facility Authority, Barrett, Graham, Dillard, Wood, Miller, Channel and John/Jane Doe |
| 2:2018cv01074 |
| June 22, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
| Charleston Office |
| Kanawha |
| John T. Copenhaver |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
53
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that the 16 MOTION to Dismiss and the 10 MOTION to Dismiss are denied as to Counts I and IV and granted as to Count II which is dismissed. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 7/2/2019. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party, plaintiff) (lca)
|
|
Filing
47
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that the 18 MOTION by West Virginia Regional Jail Correctional Facility Authority to Dismiss is granted as to Counts I, II, and VI and denied as to Count V; Counts I and II are dismissed as to the West Virginia Regional Jail Correctional Facility Authority; and Count VI is dismissed. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 3/29/2019. (cc: plaintiff; counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (taq)
|
|
Filing
35
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 3 MOTION by Farrell G. Kelly to remand and for expenses. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 11/8/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (taq)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- 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.
