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.

Rothunde v. Sigler

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


October 25, 2010

KIMBERLY ROTHUNDE PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARY SIGLER ET AL. DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

On September 30, 2010, a Report & Recommendation was filed by Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore in the above captioned case. More than fourteen (14) 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 Defendants intentionally endangered Plaintiff by putting a known violent criminal in her cell, deliberately ignored her reports of threats from her cellmate, and denied her requests for medical attention following an attack from her cellmate. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss [#62] two of Plaintiff's twelve counts, and the Defendants also sought to dismiss Defendant Christopher Wolf as a defendant. Plaintiff agreed that Count II (due process) should be dismissed and also agreed that Defendant Wolf should be dismissed for lack of sufficient service. The Court concurs with the recommendation that Plaintiff's equal protection claim should remain as Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that she was treated more harshly than other similarly situated inmates who had asked for protection from their cellmates.

Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report & Recommendation [#68] of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [#62] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' claim alleging a violation of due process is DISMISSED. The motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim regarding equal protection. Defendant Christopher Wolf is also terminated as a party. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

ENTERED this 22 day of October, 2010.

20101025

© 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.