SMITH v. SMITH et al
Case Number: 1:2010cv00256
Filed: March 4, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Presiding Judge: Larry J. McKinney
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
RSS 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
November 8, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 133 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [dkt. 125 ] on the issue of exhaustion is hereby adopted as the decision and Entry of the Court. The Defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing that Mr. Smith failed to exhaust, and such affirmative defense is stricken. The Court further adopts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation as to Plaintiff's Objection and Motion to Strike Defendant's Witness Mike Smith As a Witness [dkt. 121 ] and Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law [dkt 122 ], such that motions are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/8/2012. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)
April 5, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 100 Entry Discussing Selected Matters - The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 99 is denied. The plaintiff's petition for copy of document 97 is granted. A copy of the plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss shall be incl uded with the plaintiff's copy of this Entry. The plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel 78 is denied. The plaintiff's motions for the issuance of subpoenas and for the advancement of funds to secure the attendance of witnesses 76 and 77 are denied. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/5/2012. (JKS)
March 8, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 96 ENTRY Discussing Complaint and Dismissing Certain Claims - Claims against offenders M. Jackson and C. Watkins must be dismissed. Claims against Superintendent Jeff Wrigley must be dismissed. All claims for injunctive relief and any claims agains t the defendants in their official capacities must be dismissed. Claims for money damages alleged against Jennifer Smith and Daphne Tester in their individual capacities shall proceed as submitted. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims resolved in this Entry. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/8/2012. (JKS)
August 10, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 63 ORDER denying 62 Motion for Reconsideration of the denial of his motion for preliminary injunction and motion for temporary restraining order. His motion to reconsider offers no information which warrants a different ruling. See Patel v. Gonzales 4 42 F.3d 1011, 1015-1016 (7th Cir. 2006) (A motion to reconsider asks that a decision be reexamined in light of additional legal arguments, a change of law, or an argument that was overlooked earlier....) (copy to plaintiff via U.S. Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/10/2011. (MAC)
August 5, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 61 ORDER denying Plaintiff's 57 Motion for Reconsideration (See Order) (copy to plaintiff via U.S. Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/5/2011. (MAC)
July 28, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 60 ORDER denying 51 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and denying 54 Motion for TRO Copy to pltf via US mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/28/2011. (CBU)
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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: SMITH v. SMITH et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?