Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

14-2750 - Ruiz v. Williams et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
14-2750 - Ruiz v. Williams et al
November 17, 2015
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. on 11/17/2015. Defendants' motion to dismiss 75 is denied. The Court orders Defendant Whitfield to file an answer or motion to dismiss by December 14, 2015. The Clerk of the Court is directed to modify Defendant Randy Ptist's name to "Randy Pfister." The case is set for further status hearing on December 22, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. The Court requests that counsel file an updated joint status report, including a proposed discovery plan, no later than December 17, 2015. Mailed notice(cdh, )
March 26, 2018
PDF | More
denied as to the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Pfister and Reed. This case is set for status hearing on April 19, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice(cdh, )MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. on 3/26/2018. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply 177 is granted. The Wexford Defendants' motion for summary judgment 139 is granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Dr. Ghosh, Dr. Fuentez, and Wexford and against Plaintiff on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and First Amendment retaliation claims, and for Dr. Schaefer and against Plaintiff on Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim. Summary judgment is denied as to the Eighth Amendment and First Amendment claims against Williams, Dr. Carter, Dr. Tilden, Ojelade, Dr. Nwaobasi, and Dr. Shearing, and as to the Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Schaefer. The IDOC Defendants' motion for summary judgment 142 is granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment is granted in favor of all IDOC Defendants and against Plaintiff on Plaintiff's First Amendment claim and in favor of Hardy, Whitfield, and Harrington and against Plaintiff on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim. Summary judgment is