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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-714 - Bales v. Corizon Medical Services Inc. et al (INMATE 2)


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-714 - Bales v. Corizon Medical Services Inc. et al (INMATE 2)
January 19, 2017
PDF | More
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE: it is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that: 1) Plf's claims against the named dfts challenging events which occurred on or before 10/16/2012, be DISMISSED with prejudice under the directives of 28 USC 1915(3)(2)(B)(i) as Plf failed to file the complaint regarding these allegations within the time prescribed by the period of limitation; 2) The 1983 claims presented against Dft Corizon Medical Services, to the extent they are not barred by the statute of limitations, be DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); 3) The complaint be DISMISSED prior to service of process under the directives of 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii); Objections to R&R due by 2/17/2017. Signed by Honorable Judge Terry F. Moorer on 1/19/2017. (wcl, )
February 28, 2017
PDF | More
ORDERED as follows: 1) The 8 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 2) Plf's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as barred by the statute of limitations; and 3) To the extent Plf's claims are not time-barred, his claims against Dft Corizon Medical Services are DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 2/28/2017. (wcl, )