Beaman v. Souk et al
| Alan Beaman |
| James Souk, Charles Reynard, Tim Freesmeyer, Rob Hospelhorn, Dave Warner, John Brown, Frank Zayas, McLean County Illinois and Town of Normal, Illinois |
| 1:2010cv01019 |
| January 26, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Peoria Office |
| McLean |
| Byron G. Cudmore |
| Joe Billy McDade |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
145
ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 3/7/2014: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Objection to Plaintiff's Designation of Filings for Record on Appeal 143 , construed by the Court as a motion to correct or strike matters from the appellate record, is DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit this Order to the Court of Appeals as part of the record pursuant to Circuit Rule 10(b). SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER (cc:CA07)(JRK, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
136
ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 1/2/2014: IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 109 is GRANTED. Counts I, II, and III, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Counts IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Further, the other Motion for Summary Judgment 97 , filed by Defendants John Brown and McLean County, Illinois, is DENIED AS MOOT. CASE TERMINATED. (SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER)(JRK, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
82
ORDER denying 74 Motion for Reconsideration; adopting in full Report and Recommendations 81 . See written order. Entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 12/21/12. (JBM8, ilcd).
|
|
Filing
68
OPINION and ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 3/26/12 - The Report and Recommendation 65 is ACCEPTED. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants McLean County, Charles Reynard, and James Souk 54 is DENIED. The following claims remain:1. C ounts I-III (§ 1983 claims) against Defendants Freesmeyer, Hospelhorn, Warner, Brown, and Zayas; 2. Counts IV-VI (state law claims) against Defendants Souk, Reynard, Freesmeyer, Hospelhorn, Warner, Brown, and Zayas;3. Count VII (respondeat superior claim) against the Town of Normal;4. Count VIII (indemnification claim) against McLean County and Town of Normal.(see Opinion and Order for details) (SF, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
48
OPINION AND ORDER: The Report and Recommendation 35 is ACCEPTED IN PART AND REJECTED IN PART and the Motions to Dismiss {19],and 25 are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. (1) All claims related to the bypass route are DISMISSED for failure to sta te a claim. (2) The respondants' superior claims against McLean County are DISMISSED. (3) The claims in Count I against Brown, Reynard, and Zayas are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (4)Reynard and Souk are entitled to absolute immunity and qualif ied immunity as to Count I of the Complaint and it is accordingly DISMISSED as to these two Defendants. (5) Counts II, III, and V are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint consistent with this Order wit hin 15 days of the date of this Order. Prior to filing such an Amended Complaint, the Court encourages Plaintiff to take a closer look at Twombly and Iqbal and to tailor their pleading according to the rulings in those cases. (6) In all other respects the Motions to Dismiss are DENIED and the Objections are overruled. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 3/2/11. (SF, ilcd)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
