Wimberly v. Sams et al
| Anthony Wimberly |
| C/O Sams, C/O Woodard and Warden Dennison |
| 3:2016cv01309 |
| December 5, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| East St. Louis Office |
| Johnson |
| Michael J. Reagan |
| 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
38
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court FINDS that Plaintiff Anthony Wimberly did not exhaust his administrative remedies as to the claims in this action. Accordingly , Defendant Robert Sams' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 22 ) is GRANTED. While granting a motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion typically results in dismissal of a plaintiff's claims without prejudice, the undersi gned finds that Wimberly intentionally altered and misrepresented documents filed with his complaint and other pleadings in an attempt to mislead the Court. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk's Office shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant Sams and against Wimberly and shall close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 9/21/2018. (rah)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 4/27/2017. (tjk)
|
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 Southern 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.
