Jackson v. Physical Injury x-ray

Jackson v. Physical Injury x-ray

Plaintiff:	Howard Jackson
Defendant:	Physical Injury x-ray
Case Number:	4:2015cv04196
Filed:	November 30, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of Illinois
Office:	Rock Island Office
County:	Livingston
Presiding Judge:	Sue E. Myerscough
Presiding Judge:	Tom Schanzle-Haskins
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
May 31, 2016	Filing 6 MERIT REVIEW OPINION: Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. All pending motions are denied as moot. 3 , 4 . This case is therefore closed. The clerk i s directed to enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. This dismissal shall count as one of the plaintiff's three allotted "strikes" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). Plaintiff must still pay the full filing fee of � 36;350 even though his case has been dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to record the strike in the three-strike log. If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the en try of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). Plaintiff is admonished if he continues to file the exact same claim he has repeatedly filed in this Court and the Southern District of Illinois, he will face monetary sanctions and a filing ban concerning any pending or future litigation pursuant to §1983. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION) Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 5/31/2016. (GL, ilcd)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 31, 2016

Filing 6 MERIT REVIEW OPINION: Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. All pending motions are denied as moot. 3 , 4 . This case is therefore closed. The clerk i s directed to enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. This dismissal shall count as one of the plaintiff's three allotted "strikes" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). Plaintiff must still pay the full filing fee of � 36;350 even though his case has been dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to record the strike in the three-strike log. If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the en try of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). Plaintiff is admonished if he continues to file the exact same claim he has repeatedly filed in this Court and the Southern District of Illinois, he will face monetary sanctions and a filing ban concerning any pending or future litigation pursuant to §1983. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION) Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 5/31/2016. (GL, ilcd)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Jackson v. Physical Injury x-ray
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Howard Jackson
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: Physical Injury x-ray
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.

Why Is My Information Online?