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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

14-1198 - Sawyer v. Prack et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
14-1198 - Sawyer v. Prack et al
July 29, 2016
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMENDED that defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 35) be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:(1) Plaintiff's due process claim asserted against defendants Phelix and Prack should be DISMISSED; (2) Plaintiff's excessive force claims asserted against the John Doe defendants should be DISMISSED; and (3) Plaintiff's excessive force claims, asserted against defendants Richards and Langdon, should survive defendants' motion. RECOMMENDED that defendants Phelix, Prack, John Doe #1, John Doe #2 and John Doe #3 be DISMISSED from this action. Objections to R&R due by 8/15/2016 Case Review Deadline 8/19/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 7/29/16. (served on plaintiff by regular mail)(alh, )
September 28, 2016
PDF | More
DECISION AND ORDER: Based upon a de novo review of the portions of the Report- Recommendation to which plaintiff objected, the 40 Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in all respects. See 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1). Therefore, it is ORDERED that: (1) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; (2) Plaintiff's due process claim asserted against defendants Phelix and Prack is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (3) Plaintiff's excessive force claims asserted against the John Doe defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (4) Defendants' motion with regards to plaintiff's excessive force claims against defendants Richards and Langdon is DENIED and such claims remain; (5) Defendants Phelix, Prack, John Doe #1, John Doe #2 and John Doe #3 are DISMISSED from this action. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 9/28/16. (served on plaintiff by regular mail) (alh, )
February 5, 2018
PDF | More
AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that: (1) Paragraph 4 of the September 28, 2016 Decision & Order (ECF No. 42) is amended to read as follows: "plaintiff's excessive force claim, if any, against defendants Richards and Langdon is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE regarding the alleged use of excessive force in the Special Housing Unit at Bare Hill Correctional Facility on October 1, 2011 and defendants' motion is DENIED regarding the alleged use of excessive force against defendants Richards and Langdon outside the music room and hallway at Bare Hill Correctional Facility on October 1, 2011"; (2) the testimony at trial shall be limited to the alleged use of excessive force by defendants Richards and Langdon outside the music room and hallway at Bare Hill Correctional Facility on October 1, 2011 and any injuries plaintiff may have sustained from that event; and (3) any testimony regarding the alleged use of force in the Special Housing Unit at Bare Hill Correctional Facility on October 1, 2011 and any injuries plaintiff may have sustained from that event is PRECLUDED. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 2/5/18. (served on plaintiff by regular mail)(alh, )