GLISSON v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al
| NICHOLAS GLISSON |
| MARY COMBS, CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., MALAKA G. HERMINA and INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION |
| 1:2012cv01418 |
| October 2, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Sarah Evans Barker |
| Mark J. Dinsmore |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act |
| None |
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
171
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY - As detailed above, Defendant's Motion to Limit Expert Diane Sommer [Dkt. 79 ]is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Stan Smith, Ph.D. [ Dkt. 51 ] and Supplemental Motion to Exclude Testimony from Plaintiff's Designated Expert Stan Smith, Ph.D. [Dkt. 83 ] are GRANTED. Although Dr. Smith's expert testimony on hedonic damages is excluded, Plaintiff may still claim as an element of damages Mr. Glisson's loss of enjoyment of life. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 12/27/2018. (NAD) Modified on 12/27/2018 - Edited for administrative purposes(NAD).
|
|
Filing
139
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION -The Magistrate Judge submitted his Report and Recommendation on Order to Show Cause. The parties were afforded due opportunity pursuant to statute and the rules of this Court to file objections; none were filed. The Court, having considered the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/18/2018. (CKM)
|
|
Filing
129
ENTRY ON MOTION FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE - This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Estate of Nicholas Lee Glisson's ("the Estate") Motion for Recusal ("Motion"). [Filing No. 123 .] The Estate claims that, pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 455(a), the presiding judge in this matter must recuse herself because of personal animus against the Estate's counsel ("Counsel"). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 137, the presiding judge requested that the Chief Judge eit her review the Motion or reassign it to another judicial officer. [Filing No. 125 .] The Chief Judge reassigned the Motion to herself. [Filing No. 127 .] For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the Estate's Motion and remands this m atter to the presiding judge. Given the total lack of evidentiary support for the Estate's assertions against the presiding judge, along with the untimeliness of the Estate's motion considering the lengthy pendency of the case, the Chief Judge hereby DENIES the Estate's Motion for Recusal. [Filing No. 123 .] (See Entry). Signed by Criminal Duty Magistrate Judge on 11/13/2017. (APD)
|
|
Filing
92
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS - The CMS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART as to the federal claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and all pending motions to limit or exclude expert testimony filed by Defendants [ Docket Nos. 51, 52, 79, 83, and 85] are DENIED AS MOOT. Having dismissed all federal claims in this litigation, we relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over all remaining state law claims, which are hereby REMANDED to Marion Superior Court. The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to effect this remand under cause number 49D05-1208-CT-034526 as promptly as possible. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 6/4/2014. (JD)
|
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 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.
