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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-936 - Davis v. Hill et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-936 - Davis v. Hill et al
August 31, 2015
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Nixon on 8/31/15. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)
August 26, 2016
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 18 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO BE RELEASED DUE TO RETALIATION, 13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Roland Davis. For the reasons stated above, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Docket Entry Nos. 13 and 18) should be denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 8/26/16. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)
January 12, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER: On August 26, 2016, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 46), to which the pro se plaintiff has filed timely Objections (Docket No. 53). The plaintiff appears to misunderstand the ruling by the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge is not recommending that the case be dismissed; he is merely analyzing how the plaintiff has not made out proper grounds for the issuance of a preliminary injunction at this phase of the case. This case is not being dismissed on its merits. For the reasons expressed herein, the Objections of the plaintiff are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and made the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this court. For the reasons expressed therein, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff'sMotions for Preliminary Injunction To Be Released Due to Retaliation (Docket Nos. 13, 18) are DENIED. This case shall be returned to the magistrate judge for further handling under the original referral order. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 1/12/17. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(am)
March 21, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 3/21/17. (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: On February 21, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Docket No. 64) as to the defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 29), recommending that the motion be granted, all other pending motions be denied as moot, and this action be dismissed. Pending before the court are Objections to the R&R timely filed by the plaintiff. (Docket No. 66). For the reasons explained more fully in the Memorandum entered contemporaneously herewith, the court finds that the plaintiff's Objections lack merit. The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis and recommendation and finds that the defendants' motion to dismiss should be granted, all other pending motions be denied as moot, and this action be dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiff's Objections are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the R&R entered on February 21, 2017 is hereby ADOPTED AND APPROVED AS MODIFIED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 3/21/17. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(am)