MCDAVID v. CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES ET AL.
| KENNETH R. MCDAVID |
| FARRAH BUNCH, R.N., CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES, LOLITH JOSEPH, M.D. and KATEISHA THOMAS |
| 2:2015cv00249 |
| August 10, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Mark J. Dinsmore |
| William T. Lawrence |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 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
28
Entry Denying Motion for Summary Judgment and Directing Further Proceedings - For the reasons explained in this Entry, the defendant's motion for summary judgment 11 must be denied and further proceedings will be directed. The defendants have failed to show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether McDavid exhausted his available administrative remedies. The defendants shall have through September 9, 2016, in which to either abandon their affirmative defense regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies or to request a hearing to resolve the factual disputes detailed above. The court will attempt to recruit counsel to represent the plaintiff in this action consistent with the Entry of August 12, 2016. (See Entry.) Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 8/17/2016. (BRR)
|
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.
