Matthews v. Thompson et al
| Kendra Matthews |
| Sherly Thompson, Arquilah Wilson, Stephan Kretchmer, Mary Cerda, David Brennisen and Kelly Davidson |
| 3:2014cv03107 |
| April 9, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Springfield Office |
| Logan |
| 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
79
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPINION: Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment 62 64 are GRANTED. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. All pending motions not addressed below are denied as m oot, and this case is terminated, with the parties to bear their own costs. Plaintiff remains responsible for the $350.00 filing fee. If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this judgment, she must file a notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 2/19/2016. (MJ, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
9
MERIT REVIEW OPINION: The clerk is directed to attempt service on Defendants pursuant to the standard procedures. The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 6/26/2014. (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.
