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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-50206 - Tompkins v. Whiteside County Jail et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-50206 - Tompkins v. Whiteside County Jail et al
September 28, 2015
PDF | More
ck J. Kapala on 9/28/2015. Mailed notice (jp, )ORDER: Plaintiff has paid the $400.00 filing fee. On its own motion, the Court dismisses Defendants Whiteside County Jail and Tim Erickson. The Court orders the Clerk of Court to: (1) file Plaintiff's complaint 1; (2) issue summons for service on Nurse Julie and Sheriff Willhelme; and (3) send Plaintiff two blank USM-285 service forms, a magistrate judge consent form, filing instructions, and a copy of this order. The Court advises Plaintiff that a completed USM-285 (service) form is required for each named Defendant. The U.S. Marshal will not attempt service on a Defendant unless and until the required forms are received. The U.S. Marshal is appointed to serve the Defendants. [See STATEMENT] Signed by the Honorable Frederi
July 26, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER-WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Frederick J. Kapala on 7/26/2017. Mailed notice (kms)
October 6, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER : Plaintiff's motion for attorney representation 65 is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion to subpoena witnesses 64 is also denied. [See STATEMENT] Signed by the Honorable Iain D. Johnston on 10/6/2017. Mailed notice (jp, )
February 6, 2018
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Plaintiff Shawn Tompkins, a prisoner currently incarcerated at Taylorville Correctional Center, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a denial of medical care when he was incarcerated at Whiteside County Jail. On October 23, 2017, the Court conducted a Pavey hearing concerning Plaintiffs efforts to exhaust administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Defendants did not meet their burden of demonstrating that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Therefore, it is the Courts recommendation that Defendants affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies be rejected and this action shall proceed to the merits of Plaintiffs claims. Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be filed by February 23, 2018. Failure to object may constitute a waiver of objections on appeal. See Provident Bank v. Manor Steel Corp., 882 F.2d 258, 260 (7th Cir. 1989). (See attachment for full detail.) Signed by the Honorable Iain D. Johnston on 2/6/2018: Mailed notice (yxp, ) (Main Document 70 replaced on 2/6/2018) (yxp, ).
February 26, 2018
PDF | More
remedies and this action shall proceed to the merits of plaintiff's claims. Signed by the Honorable Frederick J. Kapala on 2/26/2018. Mailed notice (kms)ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendations: Before the court is a report and recommendation ("R&R") 70 by the magistrate judge that defendants' affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies be rejected and this action proceed to the merits of plaintiff's claims. After being afforded a sufficient opportunity, neither party has offered any objection to the R&R. Accordingly, there being no written objection to the R&R of the magistrate judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985), and the court having reviewed the R&R, the court accepts the R&R and rejects defendants' affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative