NIKSICH v. CORIZON INC. et al
| EDWARD J NIKSICH |
| RICHARD BROWN, SAMUEL BYRD, WILLIAM L CARR, CORIZON INC., HICKMAN, KIM HOBBSON, BENJAMIN R. LOVERIDGE and NEIL J. MARTIN |
| WVCF (Court Use Only) |
| 2:2016cv00206 |
| June 8, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Denise K. LaRue |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 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
163
Order Discussing Motion for Summary Judgment - For the reasons explained, the Medical Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. 144 , is granted in part and denied in part, and Warden Brown's motion for summary judgment, dkt. 146 , is granted. The following claims for monetary damages and injunctive relief shall proceed to trial: (1) Eighth Amendment claim that Dr. Byrd was deliberately indifferent to Mr. Niksich's pain management; (2) Eighth Amendment claim that Drs. Byrd and Hinchman were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Niksich's need to see an outside specialist; and (3) Eighth Amendment policy claim against Corizon regarding its policy that inmates must fill out a healthcare request form on order to ob tain medical treatment regardless of whether they are able to do so. The defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all other claims, meaning no claims against Dr. Loveridge or Warden Brown shall proceed. No partial final judgment shall issue a t this time. The Magistrate Judge is requested to discuss with the parties the further development and resolution of this action, whether by settlement or trial, and to discuss possible trial dates. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/10/2019. (DMW)
|
|
Filing
91
Entry Granting Motion to Appoint Rule 706 Neutral Expert - The plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants alleging that they violated his Eighth Amendment rights due to their deliberate indifference to hi s Hepatitis C and resulting liver issues, along with the pain associated with these conditions. Presently before the Court is the plaintiff's motion for the Court to appoint a neutral medical expert under Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The defendants oppose this motion. For the reasons explained below, the plaintiff's motion, dkt. 83 , is granted. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/19/2017. (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.
