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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-2995 - Williams v. Minnesota Department of Corrections et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-2995 - Williams v. Minnesota Department of Corrections et al
January 22, 2018
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 41 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order should be DENIED, 40 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order should be DENIED, 44 MOTION to Alter/Amend/Supplement Pleadings 1 Complaint should be DENIED, 31 MOTION to Dismiss/General should be GRANTED, 74 MOTION to Alter/Amend/Supplement Pleadings should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, 45 MOTION of Constitutional Challenge to Statute Directed to the State of Minnesota and Its Agencies should be DENIED, 78 MOTION For Leave Allowing Plaintiff to Present the Previous Motion to Supplement Pleadings should be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer on 1/22/18. (cc: Williams)(AKL)
February 23, 2018
PDF | More
d [Docket No. 74] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (6) Williams's motion for leave to present the previous motion to supplement pleadings and amend the record [Docket No. 78] is DENIED. (7) Defendants Tom Roy and Eddie Miles are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (8) Defendants Rice County, City of Faribault, Washington County, City of Bayport, County of Dakota, and City of Hastings are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (9) Defendants Minnesota Department of Corrections; Minnesota Correctional FacilityFaribault, Mailroom Department; and Minnesota Correctional FacilityFaribault, Property Department are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to § 1915A. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on 2/23/2018. (CBC) cc: Williams. (kt)ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation 81. (1) Roy and Miles's motion to dismiss [Docket No. 31] is GRANTED. (2) Williams's motion for temporary injunction and restraining order [Docket Nos. 40 and 41] is DENIED. (3) Williams's motion for leave to file supplemental or amended complaint [Docket No. 44] is DENIED. (4) Williams's motion of constitutional challenge [Docket No. 45] is DENIED. (5) Williams's motion to supplement pleadings and amend the recor