Makeda-Phillips v. Illinois Secretary of State
| Marion Makeda-Phillips |
| Illinois Secretary of State |
| 3:2012cv03312 |
| November 20, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Springfield Office |
| Sangamon |
| Byron G. Cudmore |
| Sue E. Myerscough |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination) |
| 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
88
OPINION: Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Declaration (d/e 86 ) is GRANTED. Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 81 ) is GRANTED as to the federal claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. The state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 77 ) is DENIED. This case is CLOSED. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 5/29/2015. (ME, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
80
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 12/30/2014. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (d/e 76 ) is DENIED. (DM, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
26
OPINION: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 22 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff has stated a plausible § 1983 race discrimination claim against Defendants Westnedge and Caskey, as well as Defendant White in his official capac ity for prospective injunctive relief only. Plaintiff has also stated a claim against her employer, Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The § 1983 race discrimination claim against Defendan t White in his individual capacity is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and with leave to replead. The claim for damages against Defendant White in his official capacity is DISMISSED WIT H PREJUDICE. The claims against Defendants Westnedge and Caskey und er the ADA are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Finally, Plaintiff's state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with leave to replead. Plaintiff is granted until February 24, 2014 to file a Third Amended Complaint if she so desires. If she do es not do so, the Court will assume that she intends to stand on her Second Amended Complaint. If Plaintiff files a Third Amended Complaint, Defendants shall answer or otherwise plead on or before March 10, 2014. If Plaintiff does not file a Third Amended Complaint, Defendants shall file an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint on or before March 10, 2014. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 2/10/2014.(ME, 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
| Search for this case: Makeda-Phillips v. Illinois Secretary of State | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Marion Makeda-Phillips | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Illinois Secretary of State | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
