Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Walter Pegues and Sidney Collins v. Forrest Ashby

July 19, 2012

WALTER PEGUES AND SIDNEY COLLINS, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
FORREST ASHBY, JENNIFER BLAESING, SANDRA SIMPSON, STEVE DREDGE, AND ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge:

E-FILED

Thursday, 19 July, 2012 05:21:22 PM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

OPINION

Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se and currently detained in the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center, pursue claims that they are being denied a nutritionally adequate religious diet and are being retaliated against for pursuing their right to a religious diet.

This case is set for a conference on July 30, 2012, but the conference will be cancelled as unnecessary. All Defendants except Defendant Dredge have been served, and there are no pending issues to discuss.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1) The status conference set for July 30, 2012, is cancelled. The clerk is directed to notify Plaintiffs' detention center of the cancellation.

2) The parties are reminded of their option to consent to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. (See attached form).

3) By August 3, 2012, counsel for Defendant Aramark Correctional Services, LLC, is directed to inform the Court whether he will be filing an appearance for Defendant Dredge, and, if not, where Defendant Dredge's waiver of service should be sent. The clerk sent Dredge's waiver of service to Aramark's corporate headquarters in Pennsylvania, but the waiver has not been returned.

4) The clerk is directed to update the docket to show that the correct name of Defendant Aramark Food Services Corp. is Aramark Correctional Services, LLC.

5) By September 14, 2012, the parties shall provide to each other the initial disclosures described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(i)-(ii).

6) Plaintiffs shall disclose expert witnesses and expert testimony pursuant to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by October 1, 2012.

7) Defendants shall disclose expert witnesses and expert testimony pursuant to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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