Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Warren v. Briggs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


October 21, 2010

CHARLES WARREN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN M. BRIGGS, TOM BOND, STEVEN M. SETTINGSGAARD, AND THE CITY OF PEORIA, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge

ORDER

On September 22, 2010, a Report & Recommendation was filed by Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore in the above captioned case. More than ten (10) days have elapsed since the filing of the Report & Recommendation, and no objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015 (7th Cir. 1988); and Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). As the parties failed to present timely objections, any such objections have been waived. Id.

The relevant procedural history is sufficiently set forth in the comprehensive Report & Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Suffice it to say that Plaintiff has brought this litigation alleging that he was the victim of excessive force, false arrest, and an unreasonable search on July 18, 2007. The Court concurs with the recommendation that Counts I and II of the Second Amended Complaint are duplicative of the properly stated § 1983 claim asserted in Count III and should be dismissed. The Court further agrees that the deliberate indifference claim alleged in Count IV is sufficiently specific to satisfy the requirements of federal notice pleading, Iqbal, and Twombly and to proceed for further development. Finally, the official capacity claims asserted against Defendants Briggs and Bond must be dismissed as duplicative of the claim against the City of Peoria.

Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation [#100] of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [#89] is GRANTED IN PART in that Counts I and II of the Second Amended Complaint are dismissed and DENIED in all other respects. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [#93] is GRANTED in that the official capacity claims against Defendants Briggs and Bond are dismissed, and this matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

20101021

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.