TAYLOR v. SMITH et al
| DAVID G. TAYLOR |
| ESTHER HINTON, MARY RANKIN and JEFFERY SMITH |
| WVCF (Court Use Only) |
| 2:2015cv00071 |
| March 10, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| William T. Lawrence |
| William G. Hussmann |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
67
ENTRY - For the foregoing reasons, Dr. Smith's motion for summary judgment [dkt. 57 ] is granted. Mr. Taylor's motions for summary judgment [dkts. 55 , 60 are denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 3/22/2017. (DW)
|
|
Filing
35
ORDER denying 19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Mr. Taylor has not shown he is entitled to injunctive relief. **SEE ORDER** Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 8/13/2015. (AH)
|
|
Filing
11
ENTRY Discussing Complaint - The case shall proceed as to the deliberate indifference to a serious medical need claim asserted against Smith, Rankin and Hinton. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue and serve process on defendants Smith, Rankin and Hinton in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (d)(1). Copies sent as directed. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/7/2015. (AH)
|
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.
