Middleton v. Tucson, City of et al
Plaintiff: Andrea Middleton
Defendant: Tucson, City of, Tucson Police Department and Frank Greene
Case Number: 4:2015cv00185
Filed: April 30, 2015
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office: Tucson Division Office
County: Pima
Presiding Judge: Bruce G Macdonald
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 31, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 78 JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to the Courts Order filed March 31, 2018, which granted the Motion for Summary Judgment, judgment is entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiff. Plaintiff to take nothing, and the complaint and action are dismissed with prejudice.Signed by Judge Jennifer G Zipps on 3/31/2018. (MCO)
July 18, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 69 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Judge enter an order GRANTING Defendant City of Tucson's 53 Motion for Summary Judgment. Any party may serve and file written objections within 14 days after being se rved with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. No replies shall be filed unless leave is granted from the District Judge. If objections are fil ed, the parties should use the following case number: CV-15-0185-TUC-JGZ. Failure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may result in waiver of the right of review. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce G Macdonald on 7/17/17.(BAC)
May 16, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER ADOPTING 25 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted; Defendant Greene's 9 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Greene under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are dismissed. As there are no remaining claims against Defendant Greene in his individual capacity, Defendant Greene is dismissed from the action without prejudice. Signed by Judge Jennifer G Zipps on 5/13/16.(BAC)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Middleton v. Tucson, City of et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Andrea Middleton
Represented By: Todd Edward Hale
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Tucson, City of
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Tucson Police Department
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Frank Greene
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?