Rodriquez v. Migliorino et al
| Jorge A Rodriquez, Jr. |
| Robert Migliorino, Geraldo Acevedo, Lois L Mathes, . Lochard and . Griffith |
| 1:2009cv01118 |
| March 31, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| Knox |
| Harold A. Baker |
| John A. Gorman |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
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
117
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 9/21/2011. It is ordered: 1. Based on the foregoing, Defendant Damewood's motion for summary judgment 107 is allowed. The Clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in fa vor of the defendants and against the plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The case is terminated. The parties are to bear their own costs. 2. If the plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a notice of appeal with this court w ithin 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues the plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If the plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $455.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. Furthermore, if the appeal is found to be non-meritorious, the plaintiff may also accumulate a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). (cc: Plaintiff) (KB, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
104
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 9/14/2010. It is therefore ordered: 1. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), Defendants' summary judgment motions 74 and 76 are granted. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants, Acevedo, Griffith, Mathes, Lochard, Migliorino and against Plaintiff at the close of this case. The court welcomes a well-supported summary judgment motion regarding the remaining de fendant, Damewood. The parties are directed to advise the court whether a summary judgment motion on the merits will be filed within seven days of this order. Otherwise, the parties are reminded that the final pretrial conference is scheduled for O ctober 29, 2010 at 1:30 pm by video conference. The proposed final pretrial order shall be received by the clerk of the court on or before October 22, 2010. The remaining defendant is reminded that he bears the responsibility for the initial preparat ion of the pretrial order. Jury trial is scheduled for November 15, 2010 at 9:00 a.m., before the court sitting in Urbana, Illinois. The parties shall appear in person. 2. If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this order, he must file a notice of appeal w ith this court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff does choo se to appeal, he will be liable for the $455 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. Further, Plaintiff may be assessed a strike if his appeal has no merit. 3. Defendants' motions to stay 97 and 98 and Plaintiff's motion for extension of time 99 to respond to the motion to stay are rendered moot by this order. (cc: Plaintiff) (KB, 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.
