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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-319 - REED v. BOWEN et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-319 - REED v. BOWEN et al
September 1, 2016
PDF | More
Entry Dismissing Complaint - Plaintiff Anthony W. Reed, an inmate at Putnamville Correctional Facility, filed this civil action for incidents that occurred while Reed was incarcerated at the Hamilton County Jail. Reed alleges that the defendants Mark Bowen, Jason Sloderbeck, Lt. Benson, J. Miller, Cindy Gitman and Jane Doe violated his constitutional rights in a variety of ways. Reed's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. He shall have October 3, 2016, in which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 9/1/2016.(RSF)
November 9, 2016
PDF | More
Entry Dismissing Insufficient Claims and Directing Further Proceedings - On September 1, 2016, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915A(b) and directed him to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. On October 4, 2016, the petitioner filed a response to the Court's show cause order. For the reasons set forth in the entry of September 1, 2016, the following claims are still dismissed. The Hamilton County Jail is dismissed as a defendant. The plaintiff's First Amendment claim for retaliation set forth in the complaint filed on August 15, 2016, against J. Miller may proceed. 2. The plaintiff's conditions of confinement claim set forth in the complaint filed on August 15, 2016, against defendants Mark Bowen and Jason Sloderback may proceed.The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). (See Entry.) Copies distributed pursuant to distribution list. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 11/9/2016.(RSF)
August 10, 2017
PDF | More
Entry Discussing Plaintiff's Motion to Compel - Plaintiff Anthony Reed has filed a motion to compel asserting that the defendants are not complying with his discovery requests. More specifically, Mr. Reed states that the defendants failed to respond to request numbers 10, 11, 14, 15, and 24 in his request for production of documents. He alleges that in response to his effort to resolve the discovery dispute pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37, the defendants did not provide the requested information and instead offered excuses. The underlying theme in Mr. Reed's motion to compel is that he is seeking information that the defendants contend they do not have. The motion to compel, [dkt. 42], is granted in part and denied in part. The plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file a reply to the defendants' response in opposition to the motion to compel, [dkt. 45], is denied as moot. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 8/10/2017. (RSF)
June 8, 2018
PDF | More
Entry Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - The defendants' motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 57, is granted. The plaintiff's motion in opposition to motion for summary judgment, Dkt. No. 85, is denied. The plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file a surreply, Dkt. No. 97, is denied. The Court previously granted him two extensions of time to file a surreply. Dkt. No. 94; Dkt. No. 96. In the second order granting Mr. Reed time to file a surreply, the Court gave him through June 1, 2018, and warned him that no further extensions would be granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 6/8/2018. (DW)