NEIDIGE v. CORIZON INC. et al
||CORIZON INC., FRANCES E. DWYER, NEIL J. MARTIN and AMY R. WRIGHT
||WVCF (Court Use Only)
||September 9, 2016
||US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
||Terre Haute Office
||Denise K. LaRue
|Nature of Suit:
||Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition
|Cause of Action:
||42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|April 25, 2017
Entry Discussing Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment - Plaintiff Gary Neidige, who at all relevant times was incarcerated at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility ("Wabash Valley"), brought this civil rights action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Corizon, Inc. and individual medical providers at Wabash Valley. Mr. Neidige alleges that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by being deliberately indifferent to his medical needs caused by colon cancer. The defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. 56 , is granted. Mr. Neidige's claims against the defendants are dismissed without prejudice. Final Judgment consistent with this Entry shall issue. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/25/2017. (APD)
|February 7, 2017
Entry Granting Motion to Dismiss - Superintendent Brown's motion to dismiss [dkt. 28 ] is granted. Mr. Neidige's claims against him are dismissed with prejudice. The clerk is directed to terminate Superintendent Brown as a defendant in this action. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time (SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/7/2017. (DW)
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
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.
Why Is My Information Online?