Dickerson v. South Carolina, The State of et al
Filing
15
JUDGMENT dismissing the action without prejudice. (lbak)
AO 450 (SCD 04/2010) Judgment in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
District of South Carolina
Ismail Dickerson,
Plaintiff
v.
South Carolina, The State of for the actions of the Al
Cannon Detention Center and Officers; Charleston,
County of for the actions of the Al Cannon Detention
Center and Officers; Sheriff Al Cannon for the
actions of the Al Cannon Detention Center and
Officers; Al Cannon Detention Center; North
Charleston, City of
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.
1:17-cv-03279-TLW
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION
The court has ordered that (check one):
’ the plaintiff (name)
recover from the defendant (name)
the amount of
which includes prejudgment interest at the rate of
%, plus postjudgment interest at the rate of
costs.
dollars ($ ),
%, along with
O The plaintiff, Ismail Dickerson, shall take nothing of the defendants, South Carolina, The State of for the actions of
the Al Cannon Detention Center and Officers; Charleston, County of for the actions of the Al Cannon Detention Center
and Officers; Sheriff Al Cannon for the actions of the Al Cannon Detention Center and Officers; Al Cannon Detention
Center; North Charleston, City of, and this action is dismissed without prejudice.
This action was (check one):
’ tried by a jury, the Honorable
’ tried by the Honorable
presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict.
presiding, without a jury and the above decision was reached.
O decided by the Honorable Terry L. Wooten, Chief United States District Judge, presiding, accepting the Report and
Recommendation of the Honorable Shiva V. Hodges, United States Magistrate Judge, which recommended dismissing
the complaint without prejudice.
Date: January 22, 2019
ROBIN L. BLUME, CLERK OF COURT
s/L. Baker
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?