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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

11-258 - KADAMOVAS v. LOCKETT et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
11-258 - KADAMOVAS v. LOCKETT et al
August 31, 2015
PDF | More
ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 74 is GRANTED IN PART and the claims in the Amended Complaint against Defendants Heiser and Royer are dismissed with prejudice. The remainder of the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Before the status conference scheduled with Magistrate Judge Hussmann on October 2, 2015, the parties should confer and be prepared to propose a schedule for discovery in anticipation of a Pavey hearing. (See Order.) Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 8/31/2015. (RSF)
April 21, 2016
PDF | More
ENTRY FOLLOWING PAVEY HEARING - This cause is before the Court following an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), which was held on March 3, 2016. The Plaintiff, Jurijus Kadamovas, was present via videoconferencing system and by counsel. The Defendants were present by counsel. In addition to documentary evidence, the Court heard testimony from the Plaintiff and several employees of the Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana ("USP Terre Haute"): Melinda Caulton, Administrative Remedy Clerk and Associate Warden's Secretary; Unit Manager Michael Stephens; Case Counselor John Edwards; Case Manager Todd Royer; and the Plaintiff. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has fully exhausted his administrative remedies only as to the issue raised in paragraph 84 of his Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 4 as to all other allegations in the Amended Complaint and dismisses all non- exhausted claims in the Amended Complaint without prejudice. The Court DENIES AS MOOT the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 114. This case will proceed to trial to resolve the allegation contained in Paragraph 84 of the Amended Complaint. The Court will request that Magistrate Judge Dinsmore conduct a pretrial conference to establish a schedule to prepare this case for trial. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 4/21/2016. (RSF)
January 6, 2017
PDF | More
ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - This cause is before the Court on the Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 146.) The motion is fully briefed, and the Court, being duly advised, GRANTS the motion, for the reasons set forth below. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 1/6/2017. (RSF)