Shawn Massey v. J.J. Ojaniit

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that because the plaintiff did not state “a claim for deprivation of a constitutional right,” his § 1983 conspiracy claim “was properly dismissed”
• holding that where a complaint “asserts claims against state, rather than federal, actors,” the plaintiff's “relevant due process protections are found in the Fourteenth, rather than the Fifth, Amendment”
• holding that where the complaint “asserts claims against state, rather than federal, actors,” the plaintiff's “relevant due process protections are found in the Fourteenth, rather than the Fifth, Amendment.”
• holding that where the complaint “asserts claims against state, rather than federal, actors,” the plaintiff’s “relevant due process protections are found in the Fourteenth, rather than the Fifth, Amendment.”
• confirming that courts may consider “matters of public record” in resolving motions under Rule 12(c)
• stating that failure to file specific objections is not cured by district court’s de novo review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).