Adell v. Hepp et al
| Mark Anthony Adell |
| Randall Hepp, Chris Krueger, Maggioncalda, Captain Congdon and Mark Schomisch |
| 2:2017cv00267 |
| February 27, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin |
| Milwaukee Office |
| Grant |
| J P Stadtmueller |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
65
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 2/14/2018: DENYING 62 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration or an Extension of Time; DENYING 64 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel; GRANTING 52 Defendants' Supplemental Motion fo r Summary Judgment; DISMISSING Plaintiff's claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act; and DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Mark Anthony Adell at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility) (jm)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 1/3/2018 DENYING 51 Plaintiff's Second Motion for Reconsideration. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Mark Anthony Adell at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility) (jm)
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 12/15/2017 DENYING 49 Plainitff's Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff PERMITTED to file a summary judgment motion as to his remaining claims by the 12/28/2017 deadline. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Mark Anthony Adell at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility) (jm)
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 12/7/2017 GRANTING 34 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's claims for inadequate conditions of confinement and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, in violation of t he Eighth Amendment, DISMISSED. Defendants Randall Hepp, Chris Krueger, John Maggioncalda, John Congdon and Mark Schomisch DISMISSED from action. Remaining Defendants may file a summary judgment motion as to Plaintiff's remaining claims by 12/28/2017; Plaintiff to respond within 21 days of filing of Defendants' motion; Defendants may reply within 7 days thereafter. See Order. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Mark Anthony Adell at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility)(jm)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 10/12/2017 GRANTING 26 Defendants' Motion to Compel. Defendants to mail Plaintiff a medical records release authorization form, which Plaintiff shall sign and return to Defendants within 5 days of receipt. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Mark Anthony Adell at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility) (jm)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 9/6/2017 DENYING 23 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Mark Anthony Adell at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility) (jm)
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 4/10/2017 DISMISSING Plaintiff's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiff permitted to proceed against all Defendants on the following claims arising from the RHU water supply: 1) deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment and 2) inadequate conditions of confinement, in violation of the Eigh th Amendment. Copies of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and this Order to be sent electronically to Wisconsin DOJ for service on Defendants; Defendants to file responsive pleading within 60 days. See Order. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Mark Anthony Adell and Warden at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility)(jm)
|
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.
