Walker v. Doe et al
| Denzel Walker |
| John Doe, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, John Doe 5 and John Doe 6 |
| 3:2017cv00383 |
| April 12, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| East St. Louis Office |
| Livingston |
| 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
152
ORDER: Defendant Jorden Sparling's motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion (Doc. 129 ) is DENIED. Defendants Sparling, Boyd Miles, and Brandon Smith's motion for summary judgment on the merits of Plaintiff's claims (Doc . 134 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is granted as to Defendant Sparling on Plaintiff's claims of excessive force, assault, and battery, and judgment will be entered in Sparling's favor at the close of the case. It is denied i n all other respects. This matter will proceed to trial as outlined in the attached PDF order. A status conference to discuss the trial schedule and the utility of a settlement conference will be set by a separate Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty on 3/29/21. (klh2)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing
10
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 6/5/2017. (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.
