Thomas v. Timko, Et Al - Document No. 4
Thomas v. Timko, Et Al - Document No. 4
4
case 3:06-cv-00184-AS-CAN document 4 filed 03/21/2006 page 1 of 2
WAYMAN THOMAS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CAUSE NO. 3:06-CV-184 AS
v. )
)
TIM TIMKO, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
§ 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief. FED . R. CIV . PRO . 12(b)(6) provides
for the dismissal of a complaint, or any portion of a complaint, for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court applies the same standard
under § 1915A as when addressing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). Weiss v. Colley,
Dockets.Justia.com
case 3:06-cv-00184-AS-CAN document 4 filed 03/21/2006 page 2 of 2
Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 2001) (citations, quotation marks
December 4, 2003 and that he was denied medical treatment from then until
December 8, 2003. These claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Though
affirmative defense is so plain from the face of the complaint that the suit can be
regarded as frivolous, the district judge need not wait for an answer before
dismissing the suit.” Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1009 (7th Cir. 2002).
apply the most appropriate state statute of limitations. Section 1983 claims are
state statute of limitations. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985). The Indiana
IND . CODE § 34-11-2-4. Campbell v. Chappelow, 95 F.3d 576, 580 (7th Cir. 1996).
In this case, Mr. Thomas signed his complaint on March 10, 2006, but the
time for presenting these claims expired in December 2005. For the foregoing
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/ ALLEN SHARP
ALLEN SHARP, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT