SANTIAGO v. MCCLASKEY
| GARCIA RAYMOND SANTIAGO |
| J.P. MCCLASKEY, K. CHILDERS, SIX UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICER and GONSALEZ |
| 1:2012cv00093 |
| January 24, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| NCMD Office |
| Alamance |
| UNASSIGNED |
| L. PATRICK AULD |
| 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
80
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 5/18/2016; that Rios's Summary Judgment Motion (Docket Entry 66 ) is DENIED. FURTHER that Plaintiff's Extension Motion (Docket Entry 77 ) is DENIED. FURTHER that Plaintiff's Motion to Response in Opposition Exhibit "A" and "B" (Docket Entry 75 -2), Motion in Opposition Exhibit "C," "D" "E" (Docket Entry 75 -3), and Motion to Epitomize and Support the Brief of Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 76 ), and Rios's Motion to Allow Surreply (Docket Entry 78 ), are all DENIED AS MOOT. (Sheets, Jamie)
|
|
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 8/20/2015; that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 52 ) is GRANTED IN PART, in that Plaintiff's commonlaw assault claim against the United States (as subst ituted for Defendant Rios) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FURTHER that the Clerk shall prepare Summonses for the United States Attorney for this district and the United States Attorney General, as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedu re 4(i)(1)(A) and mail those Summonses to Plaintiff at the address which appears on the docket. FURTHER that Plaintiff shall, on or before September 30, 2015, serve by registered or certified mail the United States Attorney for this district and the United States Attorney General, as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(i)(1). Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of Plaintiff's excessive-force claim against Defendant Rios without further notice to Plaintiff. (Sheets, Jamie)
|
|
Filing
37
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 3/11/2014; that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Docket Entry 27 ) is GRANTED. FURTHER that the Clerk shall docket the proposed Thi rd Amended Complaint (Docket Entry 27-1) as a Third Amended Complaint, shall update the case caption accordingly, and shall send Plaintiff summons forms for Defendants Rios, Bacote, Davis, and Auten. FURTHER that Defendants' Motion to Dis miss (Docket Entry 14 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART in that: (1) Plaintiff's individual capacity claims against Defendants McClaskey, Childers, Gonsalez, and Rios for excessive force (under federal law) and assault (unde r state law) may proceed; (2) Plaintiff's individual capacity claims against Defendants Seagraves, Love, Bacote, and Davis for failure to intervene (under federal law) may proceed; (3) Plaintiff's official capacity claim against Defendant A uten for negligence (under state law) based on a theory of respondeat superior for the inaction of Defendants Bacote and Davis may proceed, subject to the addition of Defendant Auten's surety; (4) all other claims against Defendants McClaskey, C hilders, Gonsalez, Rios, Seagraves, Love, Bacote, Davis, and Auten are dismissed; and (5) all claims against Defendants Smith, City of Concord, and Rowan County are dismissed. FURTHER that, on or before April 11, 2014, Plaintiff shall prepare and shall deliver to the Clerk properly completed summonses for service as to Defendants Rios, Bacote, Davis, and Auten. Failure by Plaintiff to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of these Defendants without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). FURTHER that, on or before March 25, 2014, counsel for Defendants McClaskey, Childers, and Gonsalez shall file a Notice stating whether said counsel will represent Defendants Seagraves and Love and will accept s ervice of process on their behalf, which the Court then will effect via the CM/ECF system. If said counsel will represent Defendants Seagraves and Love, the Notice should also indicate whether said Defendants consent to have a United States Magistrat e Judge conduct any and all further proceedings in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). FURTHER that, on or before March 25, 2014, Defendants McClaskey, Childers, and Gonsalez shall answer or otherwise respond to the Third Amended Co mplaint. FURTHER that Plaintiff's Motion for Subpoena or Order (Docket Entry 30 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. FURTHER that Plaintiff's Letter Motion (Docket Entry 32 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. FURTHER that Plaintiff's Fourth Motion to Amend (Docket Entry 33 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. FURTHER that Plaintiff's Letter Motion (Docket Entry 36 ) is DENIED. (Sheets, Jamie)
|
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 North Carolina Middle 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.
