James v. Godinez et al
| Julius James |
| Randy Pfister, Salvador Godinez and John Doe |
| 3:2011cv03389 |
| October 18, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Springfield Office |
| Sangamon |
| Byron G. Cudmore |
| Sue E. Myerscough |
| 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
58
OPINION granting 45 Motion for Summary Judgment entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/31/2013. Judgment to be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. All pending motions are denied as moot, d/e 50 , and this case is terminated, with the parties to bear their own costs. All deadlines and settings on the Court's calendar are vacated. 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). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $455.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal. (MAS, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
12
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 4/27/2012. The merit review scheduled for May 21, 2012 is cancelled. This cause is set for further scheduling procedures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 on July 9, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. (or as soon as the Court can reach the case) before Judge Sue E. Myerscough. (MAS, 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.
