Bates v. Friedell et al
| Craig Thomas Bates |
| Hanns Friedell, Robert Carlson, Health Professionals Ltd and John Does |
| 2:2010cv00576 |
| July 12, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin |
| Milwaukee Office |
| Racine |
| Lynn Adelman |
| Prison Condition |
| 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
102
ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 8/17/13 that this action be dismissed with prejudice for lack of prosecution effective Friday, 9/6/2013, unless plaintiff responds to defendants motion or establishes just cause for his failure to respond to said motion as required. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff)(dm)
|
|
Filing
75
ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 6/28/12 that, on or before 8/20/12 the United States Marshal shall ascertain the address of Dr. Stephen A. Cullinan and serve Dr. Cullinan. This affidavit shall be filed on or before August 20, 2012. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff)(dm)
|
|
Filing
72
ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 3/21/12 that the Clerk of Court provide plaintiff with a copy of the medical records submitted by counsel for Hanns Freidel. Further ordering that Stephen A. Cullinan, M.D. be substituted for defendant Doctor Jo hn Doe on the docket and in the caption of this case. Further ordering that the US Marshal shall serve a copy of the amended complaint, the summons, the screening order entered 4/13/11, and this order upon defendant Stephen A. Cullinan, M.D. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff)(dm)
|
|
Filing
69
DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 1/27/12 granting 55 Motion for Summary Judgment. Further ordering that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing plaintiffs claims against defendant Hanns Freidel. Further ordering tha t within ten days of this order counsel for defendant Hanns Freidel shall provide the court with any documents or information they have regarding the identity of Nurse Jane Doe or Doctor John Doe including but not limited to plaintiffs medical records from the Racine County Jail. Any documents should be filed under seal. If counsel has no such documents or information, they shall file a letter with the court to that effect. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)
|
|
Filing
67
ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 1/12/12 denying 43 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying as moot 48 Motion to Compel; denying 54 Second Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 54 Motion to Stay. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)
|
|
Filing
38
ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 5/31/11 granting 37 Motion to Conduct the Deposition of Plaintiff. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to plaintiff) (dm)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 1/7/11 as follows: denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; granting 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying without prejudice 6 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 13 Moti on for Order to secure plaintiff's safety. Further ordering that the Amended Complaint submitted 10/1/10 is dismissed without prejudice and plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint by 2/4/11 or the action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The balance of the filing fee, $344.40, shall be collected from plaintiff's prison trust account as specified. See Order. (cc: all counsel, Financial, via USPS to plaintiff w/encl., Racine County Sheriff) (Adelman, L.)(dm)
|
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 Wisconsin Eastern 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.
