Casciaro v. Combs et al.
| Mario Casciaro |
| Unknown McHenry County Assistant State's Attorneys, Keith Von Allmen, Unknown City of Johnsburg Police Officers, The City of Johnsburg, McHenry County and Michael Combs |
| 3:2017cv50094 |
| March 27, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Rockford Office |
| McHenry |
| Iain D. Johnston |
| Philip G. Reinhard |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
269
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Philip G. Reinhard on 10/24/2022: The motion to appeal in forma pauperis 263 , filed by Scott Peters, is denied because the appeal is not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). To proceed w ith his appeal, Mr. Peters must either pay the appellate fee of $505 within fourteen days or seek review of this court's denial of his in forma pauperis request in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit within thir ty days of the entry of this order. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to plaintiff and to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Signed by the Honorable Philip G. Reinhard on 10/24/2022:Notice mailed by judicial staff (pg, )
|
|
Filing
168
ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendations: This matter comes before the court on the Order, Report and Recommendations ("R & R") 163 of Magistrate Judge Johnston recommending that defendants' motion to dismiss state law claims ag ainst defendant Rydberg and all claims against the unknown officers be granted. The court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. See FED. R. CIV. P . 72(b)(3). The court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are made. Id. "If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error." Johns on v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). In this case, the court has received no objections to the R & R (see 163 , showing that objections were due by March 13, 2020). The court has reviewed the record in this case and finds tha t the February 28, 2020, R & R is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court adopts in its entirety Judge Johnston's R & R. State law claims against defendant Rydberg and all claims against the unknown officers are dismissed. Signed by the Honorable Philip G. Reinhard on 3/16/2020:electronic notice(pg, )
|
|
Filing
98
ORDER-WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Philip G. Reinhard on 8/23/2018:For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint 73 ; 82 are granted in part and denied in part. The part ies are directed to contact Magistrate Judge Johnston within 30 days to discuss whether a settlement conference or mediation would be beneficial at this time. [see STATEMENT-OPINION] Signed by the Honorable Philip G. Reinhard on 8/23/2018. Electronic notice (kms)
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER : For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion 41 to dismiss is denied. The parties are directed to contact Magistrate Judge Johnston within 30 days to discuss whether a settlement conference or mediation would be beneficial at this time. [See STATEMENT-OPINION] Signed by the Honorable Philip G. Reinhard on 11/22/2017. Electronic notice (jp, )
|
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 Northern 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.
