McGLOTHLIN v. SCHULER, 13-cv-1176-MJR-SCW. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20151026894
Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 22, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MICHAEL J. REAGAN , Chief District Judge . On November 14, 2013, Jason McGlothlin (while confined at Big Muddy River Correctional Center, within this Judicial District) filed a pro se civil rights action in this Court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. McGlothlin asserted claims against two Defendants — Zachary Roeckeman and Lieutenant Schuler. On threshold review of the complaint in December 2013 (see Doc. 7), the undersigned District Judge dismissed certain counts of the c
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MICHAEL J. REAGAN , Chief District Judge . On November 14, 2013, Jason McGlothlin (while confined at Big Muddy River Correctional Center, within this Judicial District) filed a pro se civil rights action in this Court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. McGlothlin asserted claims against two Defendants — Zachary Roeckeman and Lieutenant Schuler. On threshold review of the complaint in December 2013 (see Doc. 7), the undersigned District Judge dismissed certain counts of the co..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN, Chief District Judge.
On November 14, 2013, Jason McGlothlin (while confined at Big Muddy River Correctional Center, within this Judicial District) filed a pro se civil rights action in this Court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. McGlothlin asserted claims against two Defendants — Zachary Roeckeman and Lieutenant Schuler. On threshold review of the complaint in December 2013 (see Doc. 7), the undersigned District Judge dismissed certain counts of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, dismissed Defendant Roeckeman from the action without prejudice, and ordered the case to proceed against Defendant Schuler. Defendant Schuler answered, and a trial schedule was entered.
On August 27, 2015, Plaintiff McGlothlin moved to voluntarily dismiss the case (Doc. 22). Defendant Schuler responded to the motion on October 1, 2015 (Doc. 23), voicing no opposition to the requested dismissal and asking the Court to grant Plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss.
The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal (Doc. 22) and DISMISSES this case with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
