Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

14-348 - Hatcher v. Bentley et al (INMATE 2)


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
14-348 - Hatcher v. Bentley et al (INMATE 2)
August 18, 2014
PDF | More
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: ORDER granting 12 MOTION for Leave to Amend Complaint, as further set out in order; RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE that: 1) Plf's claims against Dft Strange be DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii); 2) Dft Strange be DISMISSED as a party dft; 3) This case be referred back to the undersigned for further proceedings; Objections to R&R due by 9/2/2014. Signed by Honorable Judge Wallace Capel, Jr on 8/18/2014. (wcl, )
September 9, 2014
PDF | More
ORDER directing that, there being no timely objection filed to the Recommendation, and after a review of the file, the Recommendation is ADOPTED, and it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Strange are DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). 2. Defendant Strange is DISMISSED as a party defendant. 3. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 9/9/14. (scn, )
June 20, 2017
PDF | More
OPINION AND ORDER: On May 25, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case to which no timely objections have been filed. Doc. 33. Upon an independent review of the file in this case and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge be and is hereby ADOPTED, and this case be and is hereby DISMISSED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's request for compensatory damages from Defendants in their official capacities as to his claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act is DISMISSED without prejudice; 2. Plaintiff's request for compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants in their individual capacities regarding his conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985(3) and his equal protection claim arising under the Fourteenth Amendment is DISMISSED with prejudice as Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. 3. Plaintiff's request for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act is DISMISSED without prejudice. 4. Plaintiff's request for declaratory and injunctive relief from Defendants in their official capacities regarding his conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985(3) and his equal protection claim arising under the Fourteenth Amendment is DISMISSED with prejudice as Defendants did not act in violation of the Constitution. 5. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 22) is GRANTED. 6. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Final Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendants. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 6/20/2017. (kh, )