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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

14-365 - COLLIER v. CARAWAY et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
14-365 - COLLIER v. CARAWAY et al
January 20, 2016
PDF | More
Entry Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Directing Further Proceedings - Plaintiff Anthony Leon Collier ("Mr. Collier"), is a former federal inmate formerly confined at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana ("USP-TH"). After screening the amended complaint and dismissing some claims, the Court determined that Mr. Collier's claims of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and retaliation would proceed. In summary, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment 39 is granted as to the claim against Ms. Klink and denied without prejudice as to the defense of failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Defendants shall have through February 3, 2016. The Court will issue a pretrial schedule to guide the further development of the action and will attempt to recruit Mediation Assistance Program ("MAP") counsel to assist Mr. Collier in a settlement conference. The clerk shall update the docket to reflect 1) the correction of the spelling of defendants "Klink" and "Daugherty," and 2) the dismissal of the claim against Kimberly Klink. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/20/2016. (RSF)
July 27, 2016
PDF | More
Entry Discussing Defendants' Third Motion For Summary Judgment and Directing Further Proceedings - Plaintiff Anthony Leon Collier ("Mr. Collier"), is a former federal inmate formerly confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana ("FCI Terre Haute"). After screening the amended complaint and dismissing some claims, the Court determined that Mr. Collier's claims of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and retaliation would proceed against the following defendants: 1) Warden Caraway; 2) Warden L. LaRiva; 3) Dr. T. Bailey; 4) PA Daugherty; 5) C. Desmith; and 6) Hollie Bowman (the "Defendants"). Although Mr. Collier's amended complaint was filed pro se, he is now represented by counsel. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies 54 is denied in part and granted in part. Mr. Collier's motion in opposition requesting that the Court deny the Defendants' motion for summary judgment 66 is denied in part and granted in part. Accordingly, Mr. Collier's retaliation claim is dismissed without prejudice. Mr. Collier's Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs shall proceed on the merits. The Magistrate Judge is requested to set this matter for a status conference to establish a pretrial schedule for the development and resolution of Mr. Collier's claims of deliberate indifference. The Magistrate Judge is also requested to set a settlement conference in this action. (See Entry.) Copy to MJD via email. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/27/2016. (RSF)
January 24, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT: For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. [Dkt. 85.] ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 1/24/2017. (DW)
March 22, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT - Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint [Dkt. 106] attempts to circumvent the Rule 72(a) time limits to rehash previously rejected arguments. The Court therefore DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion (See Order for Additional Information). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 3/22/2017. (DW)
June 20, 2017
PDF | More
ENTRY ON PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL'S MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW - The Court cannot grant Counsel's motions without effecting substantial prejudice upon Mr. Collier, this Court, and Defendants. Given the impending critical case deadlines and the time and effort put into this case to-date, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Counsel's verified motions to withdraw. [Dkt. 140; Dkt. 141; Dkt. 142 (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 6/20/2017. (DW)
June 22, 2017
PDF | More
MARGINAL ENTRY denying as moot Nephcare's 102 Motion for Summary Judgment - SEE ENTRY. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/22/2017.(JRB)
June 26, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER - Accordingly, because the question for which Mr. Collier seeks certification for interlocutory appeal is not contestable, the portion of the Motion to Reconsider requesting certification 106 is DENIED (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/26/2017. (DW)
December 11, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER - Mr. Collier has failed to demonstrate that there is a genuine issue as to whether Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his medical conditions. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. [Filing No. 164.] Final judgment will issue accordingly (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/11/2017. (DW) Modified on 12/11/2017 (DW).