de la Cruz v. United States of America et al
| Luis de la Cruz |
| Roddie Rushing, United States of America and Correction Corporation of America |
| 4:2011cv00137 |
| January 20, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Youngstown Office |
| Mahoning |
| Benita Y. Pearson |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
30
Memorandum Opinion and Order For the foregoing reasons it is hereby ordered that: 1. Rushing's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 22 , is granted; 2. Rushing's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 23 , is granted; and 3. Rushing's motion to strike, ECF No. 29 , is dismissed as moot. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 9/28/2012. (S,L)
|
|
Filing
5
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Plaintiff's claims under the Federal Torts Claims Act, the Due Process claim, and the Eighth Amendment claim pertaining to his exposure to tear gas are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). Plainti ff's Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is dismissed against the United States and CCA. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. This action shall proceed solely on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendant Warden Rushing. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 6/14/2011. (S,L)
|
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 Ohio Northern 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.
