James v Marano et al
| Ned James, 3rd |
| Daidra Marano, Brook Thomas, Andrea Moss, Todd Nelson, Bret, Dyer, Benner and Michael Melvin |
| 1:2017cv01261 |
| June 8, 2017 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Peoria Office |
| Livingston |
| Sue E. Myerscough |
| Tom Schanzle-Haskins |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
5
MERIT REVIEW OPINION: Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Dyer. This case proceeds. Except for Defendant Dyer, all other claims and defendants are dismissed, without prejudice, as improperly joined. The clerk is directed to terminate Defendants Marano, Thomas, Moss, Nelson, Bret, Benner, and Melvin. The clerk is directed to update the docket to reflect that Defendant Dyer's first name is Jason. The clerk is directed to enter the standard order granting Plaintiff's in forma pauperis petition and assessing an initial partial filing fee and to attempt service on Defendant Dyer. The clerk is directed to entered the standard HIPAA protective order. SEE WRITTEN MERIT REVIEW OPINION. Rule 16 Deadline 9/25/2017. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 07/27/2017. (SKN, ilcd)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
