Connolly v. Clark et al
| Carlos Connolly |
| Geogia Clark and Lisa Lercher |
| 3:2013cv03361 |
| October 24, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Springfield Office |
| Adams |
| Byron G. Cudmore |
| Sue E. Myerscough |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 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
72
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPINION: (1) Defendant Carter's Motion for Extension of Time 56 and Defendant Carters Motion to Drop Party 61 are GRANTED. Defendant Carter is dismissed from this lawsuit. Clerk is directed to terminate Defendant Carter. (2 ) Defendants' respective Motions to Strike 70 71 are DENIED. 3) Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment 69 isDENIED. (4) Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment 57 59 are GRANTED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. All pending motions not addressed in this Order are denied as moot, and this case is terminated, with the parties to bear their own costs. Plaintiff remains responsible for the $350.00 fili ng fee. (5) 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 appeal in forma pauperis MUST identify the issues the Pla intiff will present on appeal to assist the court in determining whether the appeal is taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(c); see also Celske v Edwards, 164 F.3d 396, 398 (7th Cir. 1999)(an appellant should be given an opportunity to s ubmit a statement of his grounds for appealing so that the district judge "can make areasonable assessment of the issue of good faith."); Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000)(providing that a good faith appeal is an app eal that "a reasonable personcould supposehas some merit" from a legal perspective). 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 WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 8/11/2016. (ME, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
7
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 claim of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs by not permitting Plaintiff a pair of prescription, transitional lenses for use outside. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 1/15/2014. (MJ, 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.
