BERRYMAN v. BOOKER et al
MICHAEL BERRYMAN |
OFFICER BOOKER, OFFICER M. COX, CAPTAIN JOHN DOE, A.W. JOHN DOE, PH. D. EKERT, LT. JOHNSON, OFFICER MORRISON, WARDEN J. OLIVER and PSY. D. REYNOLDS |
2:2015cv00227 |
July 27, 2015 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
Terre Haute Office |
Mark J. Dinsmore |
Jane Magnus-Stinson |
Prisoner: Civil Rights |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 145 Entry Discussing Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Other Pending Motions and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - Plaintiff Michael Berryman brings this action under the theory of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971 ). Mr. Berryman at all times relevant to this action was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana ("FCI-TH"). Mr. Berryman's motion to appoint counsel, dkt. 143 , is denied as moot. Mr. Berryman 's motion requesting status of case, dkt. 144 , is granted consistent with the findings issued in this Entry. Defendant Officers Booker and Cox are entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Berryman's claims of excessive force and failure to intervene. Accordingly, their motion for summary judgment, dkt. 121 , is granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry and with the screening Entry of October 6, 2015, dkt. 13 , dismissing other claims, shall now issue. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/5/2018. (RSF) |
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.