Douglas v. Quinn et al
| Gregory D Douglas |
| Patrick Quinn, James P Sledge, Erin Davis, Lisa Madigan, Erwin McEwen and Barry Maram |
| 3:2009cv03315 |
| December 1, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Springfield Office |
| Woodford |
| Byron G. Cudmore |
| Jeanne E. Scott |
| Plaintiff |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
| 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
32
OPINION granting 28 Motion to Dismiss. See written Opinion. Entered by Chief Judge Michael P. McCuskey on 12/14/2010. (MJ, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
15
OPINION. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (d/e 8) is ALLOWED. Douglas' claims alleged under Title VII and state and federal whistle blower statutes are dismissed with prejudice. Douglas is given leave to file an amended complaint to all ege a § 1983 claim for retaliation against him for speaking out on a matter of public concern in violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The amended complaint must be filed by June 30, 2010. The existing Defendants must re spond to the amended complaint by August 16, 2010. Should Douglas add defendants, he must serve those defendants with a summons and the amended complaint, and those defendants will have the time set forth in the Rules of Civil Procedure to respond to the amended complaint. Entered by Judge Jeanne E. Scott on 5/13/2010. (CC, 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.
