Stone et al v. Netzel et al
| Timothy Stone, Rhonda Bledsoe and Pearl Dorsett |
| Lonnie Netzel, City of Kankakee, Board of Education of Kankakee School District #111, Jason Worden, Bradley Netzel and Kyle Flanigan |
| 2:2010cv02011 |
| January 20, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Urbana Office |
| Kankakee |
| Harold A. Baker |
| David G. Bernthal |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Defendant |
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
103
OPINION entered by Chief Judge Michael P. McCuskey on 1/27/2012. Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Briefing on Defendant Lonnie Netzel's Motion for Summary Judgment and to Require Production of Transcripts 100 is DENIED in part and RESERVED in part. See written opinion. (KM, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 50 Motion to Dismiss filed by Jason Worden, Board of Education of Kankakee School District #111, Kyle Flanigan, Bradley Netzel and 55 Report and Recommendations entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 8/3 /2010. The recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 55 is, therefore, accepted by the court. See Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986). The court agrees that Count IV should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The motion to dismiss 50 is granted. Count IV of the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.(MT, 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.
