Linton v. Randall et al
| Titus V Linton |
| Michael Randall, Eddie Jones, Guy Pierce, Roger E Walker, Jr, Terry McCann and Sherry Benton |
| 1:2010cv01208 |
| July 1, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Peoria Office |
| Livingston |
| Harold A. Baker |
| John A. Gorman |
| Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
84
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 1/3/14. IT IS ORDERED: Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted pursuant to Fed. R.Civ. P. 56 79 . The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defe ndants and against Plaintiff. This case is terminated, with the parties to bear their own costs. The Defendants' motion to stay is denied as moot. 83 All deadlines and settings on the Court's calendar are vacated including the January 9, 2014 pretrial and the February 18, 2014 jury trial date. 2) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this judgment, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A motion for leave to appe al in forma pauperis MUST identify the issues Plaintiff will present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(c). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal. SEE FULL ORDER. (FDT, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
54
CASE MANAGMENT ORDER entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 8/22/11. Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider the October 19, 2010 Merit Review Order 21 is DENIED. Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Pending the Outcome of the Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaust of Administrative Remedies 52 is GRANTED. SEE FULL ORDER. cc: plaintiff via scanning project. (FDT, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
17
MERIT REVIEW entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 10/19/10. IT IS ORDERED: (1) Pursuant to its merit review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff states the following federal claims: (a) The named defendant s violated the plaintiff's due process and Eighth Amendment rights based on his continued placement in administrative detention. (b) The defendants violated his First Amendment rights based on a continued denial of the right to attend religious services. (c) Defendants Guy Pierce, Michael Randle and Eddie Jones were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's serious medical condition in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they confiscated a walking cane forcing him to walk with ext reme pain. (2) All other claims based on federal law, other than those set forth in paragraph one above, are dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. (3) This case shall proceed solely on those federal claims ident ified in paragraph one above. Any claims not set forth in paragraph one above shall not be included in the case, except in the court's discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown, or by leave of court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil P rocedure 15.4) A Prisoner Scheduling Order shall be entered directing service and setting a Rule 16conference date. (5) A copy of this Case Management Order shall be served with the Complaint and Scheduling Order. (6) The defendants shall file an ans wer within the time prescribed by Local Rule. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer must be considered a responsive pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and should include all defenses appropriate underthe Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings shall be to the issues and claims stated in this Case Management Order. (7) The plaintiff's 11 12 Motions for a Default Judgement are DENIED. (8) The plaintiff's 13 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. SEE FULL ORDER ATTACHED. cc: Plaintiff(FDT, 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.
