CARR v. MITCHEFF et al
| DAVID H. CARR |
| DICK BROWN, MARLA GADBERRY, KIM GRAY, KIM HOBSON, JACQUES LECLERC, MICHAEL MITCHEFF, ROSE VAISVILLAS and LISA WOLFE |
| 1:2013cv01298 |
| August 15, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
92
ENTRY denying Plaintiff's 73 Motion for Summary Judgment. SEE ENTRY. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/14/2015. Copy sent to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. (BGT)
|
|
Filing
8
ENTRY Dismissing Insufficient Claims and Directing Further Proceedings - The claims against Marla Gadberry, Kim Gray and Rose Vaisvillas are dismissed. The claim against Wabash Valley Superintendent Dick Brown is dismissed. No final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims dismissed in this Entry. The case shall proceed as to the deliberate indifference claims asserted against Dr. Jacques Leclerc, Dr. Mitcheff, Kim Hobson, and Lisa Wolfe. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R . Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue and serve process on the remaining defendants in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). Process shall consist of the complaint, applicable forms and this Entry. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/24/2014. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)
|
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.
