Harper v. Conrad et al
| Delbert M. Harper |
| Steve Conrad, R. Whitford and D. Moore |
| 3:2014cv00523 |
| July 23, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky |
| Louisville Office |
| Jefferson |
| John G. Heyburn |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 11/14/2016: The Court will dismiss this action by separate order. cc: counsel, Plaintiff (pro se), Defendants (JBM)
|
|
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Senior Judge John G. Heyburn II. IT IS ORDERED that the following claims shall proceed beyond initial review under § 1915A: (1) the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims against Defendant Whitford and Defendant Moore in their individual capacities; and (2) the failure-to-train claim against Defendant Conrad in his official capacity. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following claims are DISMISSED: (1) the excessive-force claims against Defendants Whitford and Moore in their official capacities; and (2) the failure-to-train claim against Defendant Conrad in his individual capacity. The Court will enter a separate Scheduling Order governing the development of the continuing claims. cc:Plaintiff, pro se; Defendants; Attorney, Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government (ERH)
|
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 Kentucky Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
