Legal Opinion

Neal v. Clark

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided August 21, 1996No. 95 C 4400PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ALESIA, District Judge.

Before the court is defendants’ Keith Cooper’s (“Cooper”) and Edward Handy’s (“Handy”) (collectively, “defendants”) motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b). For the reasons that follow, the court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Neal filed a second amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Handy and Cooper violated Neal’s constitutional rights by keeping Neal in a cell with non-functioning plumbing for 20 days. Specifically, Neal alleged that on March 31, 1995, he…

2Cases cited13 opinions

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
Hudson v. McMillianSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
Rhodes v. ChapmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
Wilson v. SeiterSupreme Court of the United States · 1991

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

Florio v. CantyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2013