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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-812 - Thompson v. Erdos et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-812 - Thompson v. Erdos et al
January 18, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER denying 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 7 Motion to show cause. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 1/18/17. (sct)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
January 18, 2017
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that Plaintiff's three motions for preliminary injunctive relief 6, 9, and 12 should be DENIED, with his "motion to amend/correct" 14 to be construed as a fourth motion for preliminary injunctive relief and also be DENIED. In addition, to the extent the latter motion improperly seeks to further amend Plaintiffs complaint in this case and to bring identical claims in all three pending cases 14, the motion to amend should also be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 1/18/17. (sct)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
January 30, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER ADOPTING 19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS : plaintiffs claims against the following defendants: Warden Erdos, Sgt. McCrosky, Officer Shaw, Officer Tacketts unknown partner, Hutchinson, Henderson, C.O. Coleman, and Officer Congus are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.ยงยง1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). To the extent that plaintiff intended to name Lt. Esham and Rogers as defendants in this action, plaintiffs claims against these individuals are also DISMISSED. Finally, with the exception of plaintiffs retaliation claims against Dillow and Sears based on the September 22, 2016 attack - plaintiffs retaliation claims against Dillow, Sears and Payne are DISMISSED.. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 1/30/2017. (jlw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)]
September 5, 2017
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 39 Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction Relief. For the reasons previously set forth in the prior R&Rs, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff's latest motion for injunctive relief 39 be DENIED, without awaiting a response from the Defendants, and alternatively, stricken from the record. Objections to R&R due by 9/19/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 9/5/2017. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
September 6, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER adopting 41Report and Recommendations: the Court does determine 41Recommendation should be adopted.Accordingly, plaintiffs two latest motions for preliminary injunctive relief (Docs. 34 and 36) are DENIED for the reasons previously stated in the Report and Recommendation of January 18, 2017 and adopted by the court on January 30, 2017 (Docs. 19, 20). Plaintiff is furtherwarned that the filing of repetitive motions will not be tolerated. In the future, repetitive motions will be stricken from the record without further comment. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 9/6/2017. (jlw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)