ELLIS v. INDIANA STATE PRISON, 3:13 CV 686. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana
Number: infdco20141029c71
Visitors: 12
Filed: Oct. 27, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 27, 2014
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JAMES T. MOODY, District Judge. Pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56(e), this court granted Demajio Jerome Ellis, a pro se prisoner, until October 9, 2014, to supplement his response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment by providing declaration(s) and/or exhibit(s) explaining in detail when and how he either filed a formal grievance or explaining when and how he tried to do so as well as what prevented him from succeeding or from making additional effor
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JAMES T. MOODY, District Judge. Pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56(e), this court granted Demajio Jerome Ellis, a pro se prisoner, until October 9, 2014, to supplement his response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment by providing declaration(s) and/or exhibit(s) explaining in detail when and how he either filed a formal grievance or explaining when and how he tried to do so as well as what prevented him from succeeding or from making additional effort..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES T. MOODY, District Judge.
Pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56(e), this court granted Demajio Jerome Ellis, a pro se prisoner, until October 9, 2014, to supplement his response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment by providing declaration(s) and/or exhibit(s) explaining in detail when and how he either filed a formal grievance or explaining when and how he tried to do so as well as what prevented him from succeeding or from making additional efforts to file one. See Order dated August 26, 2014. (DE #32.) Ellis was cautioned that if he did not respond by that deadline, the motion for summary judgment would be granted for the reasons stated in that opinion. The deadline has passed and Ellis has not responded.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for summary judgment (DE #21) is GRANTED for the reasons explained in this court's order (DE #32) of August 26, 2014.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
