SAFFORD v. BARNES et al
Plaintiff: WILLIAM JOSEPH SAFFORD
Defendant: B. J. BARNES and M. B. STEWART
Case Number: 1:2014cv00267
Filed: March 28, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Office: NCMD Office
County: Guilford
Presiding Judge: THOMAS D. SCHROEDER
Presiding Judge: JOE L. WEBSTER
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
June 28, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 58 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 06/28/2016. For the reasons stated, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied. This conclusion reflects no judgment on any party (indeed Deputy Stewart denies many of the facts central to Safford's narrative) but reflects a record with materially conflicting versions of events that cannot be reconciled by objective evidence4 or without weighing credibility, which this court is precluded from doing at this stage. Accordingly, it will be for the jury to determine whose version of the facts to credit. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 28 ) is DENIED to the extent that it was not previously granted in this court's prior order (Doc. 46 ), with the caveat that the viability of any federal official capacity claim will be addressed after Plaintiff responds to Defendants' motion to strike (Doc. 48 ).(Taylor, Abby)
November 10, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 11 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 11/10/2014; that the motion to dismiss (Doc. 6 ) is GRANTED and that the following claims are DISMISSED: the Fourteenth Amendment claims against Sheriff Barnes and Deputy Stewart (first and second causes of action); the failure-to-train claim against Sheriff Barnes in his official capacity (second cause of action); the claim for supervisory liability against Sheriff Barnes in his individual capacity (second cause of actio n); the State-law claims against Sheriff Barnes in his individual capacity (third and fourth causes of action); the vicarious liability claims under § 1983 against Sheriff Barnes (fifth cause of action); and the claim against Deputy Stewart brought under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-311 and 1-410 (sixth cause of action). (Garland, Leah)
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 North Carolina Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: SAFFORD v. BARNES 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: WILLIAM JOSEPH SAFFORD
Represented By: CHRISTOPHER L. BEACHAM
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: B. J. BARNES
Represented By: WILLIAM L. HILL
Represented By: JAMES DEMAREST SECOR, III
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: M. B. STEWART
Represented By: WILLIAM L. HILL
Represented By: JAMES DEMAREST SECOR, III
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?