HARGETT v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. et al
| JAMES B. HARGETT |
| DR. CHARLES R. ZIMONT, DANIEL S. MIHALO, DR. MICHAEL MITCHEFF, DAVID CLARK, CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., MICHELLE L. HARRIS and INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION |
| 1:2011cv01316 |
| September 28, 2011 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Denise K. LaRue |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
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
217
ORDER denying 190 Defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees - Defendants are reminded that discovery is meant to be a cooperative endeavor, requiring minimal judicial intervention. See Airtex Corp. v. Shelley Radiant Ceiling Co., 536 F.2d 145, 155 (7th Cir. 1976). Had defense counsel promptly responded to Mr. Hargett's inquiries regarding the location and format of produced emails, or even proactively explained the confusing nature of the email formatting at the outset of its pr oduction, this discovery dispute could have been avoided. For these reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's motion was substantially justified pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(B) and DENIES Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees. [Filing No. 190 .]. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/3/2014. (JKS)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER - Mr. Hargett's objection, dkt. 52 , to the Magistrate Judge's report about the IDOC's Motion to Dismiss, dkt. 21 , is OVERRULED. The IDOC's motion to dismiss is GRANTED with respect to the § 1983 claim and GRANT ED with respect to state-law claims, but without prejudice to Mr. Hargett's ability to specifically plead state-law claims. Accordingly, Mr. Hargett's § 1983 claim against the IDOC is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and Mr. Hargett's s tate-law claims against the IDOC are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Mr. Hargett's objection, dkt. 50 , to the Magistrate Judge's report about Dr. Zimont's Motion to Dismiss, dkt. 23 , is OVERRULED IN PART. Dr. Zimont's motion to dismiss is DENIED with respect to the § 1983 claim and GRANTED with respect to Mr. Hargett's medical malpractice action against Dr. Zimont for actions or inactions that occurred after Dr. Zimont became a qualified health care provider on August 17, 2009. If Mr. Hargett can assert a plausible claim for the actions or inactions of Dr. Zimont that occurred before August 17, 2009, he may do so in his amended pleading. Mr. Hargett's objection, dkt. 51 , to the Magistrate Judge� 39;s report about Dr. Mitcheff's Motion to Dismiss, dkt. 31 , is OVERRULED. Dr. Mitcheff's motion to dismiss is DENIED with respect to the § 1983 claim and GRANTED with respect to Mr. Hargett's medical malpractice claim agains t Dr. Mitcheff, who was a qualified health care provider at all relevant times. The parties are ORDERED to confer with the Magistrate Judge within ten days to establish a deadline for Mr. Hargett to file an amended complaint consistent with this ruling. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/20/2012.(JKS)
|
|
Filing
48
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 31 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by MICHAEL MITCHEFF. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 3/1/2012.(MAC)
|
|
Filing
45
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 21 MOTION to Dismiss filed by INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 2/27/2012.(MAC)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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 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.
