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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-095 - Robinson v. Brantley et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-095 - Robinson v. Brantley et al
December 20, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM signed by Senior Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 12/19/2016. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
February 24, 2017
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 10 MOTION For Preliminary Injunctive Relief. Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Docket Entry No. 10) be DENIED. ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days of service of this Report and Recommendation and must state with particularity the specific portions of this Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. Failure to file written objections within the specified time can be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal the District Court's Order regarding the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 2/24/17. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)
March 21, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, to which no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. No. 14.) The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and conducted a de novo review of the record. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as modified. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction Relief Hearing (Doc. No. 10), construed only as a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order because it was filed without service to Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), is DENIED. The denial is without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a motion for a preliminary injunction after he serves Defendants, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 3/21/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(hb)
March 27, 2018
PDF | More
TED with respect to Defendant Kelly Garska because of Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies as to the claims against Garska but be DENIED with respect to Defendant Sean Brantley and that the Eighth Amendment claim of excessiveREPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge Holmes RECOMMENDS that: 1) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry Nos. 48 and 64) be DENIED; and, (2) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 49) be GRAN force against Defendant Brantley be set for trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 3/27/18. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
June 14, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Defendants' objections (Doc. No. 68) are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 67) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 48 and 64) is DENIED. Defendant' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 49) is GRANTED as to Defendant Garska, but DENIED as to Defendant Brantley. Defendant Garska is DISMISSED from this action and the case will proceed to trial against Defendant Brantley. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 6/14/18. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(afs)