McKinney v. Texas Department of Public Safety et al
Plaintiff: Richard McKinney
Defendant: Texas Department of Public Safety and Heath Peacock
Case Number: 4:2010cv00558
Filed: October 19, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Office: Sherman Office
County: Anderson
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
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
March 30, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 69 MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; granting 58 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by N. Holton, 64 Report and Recommendations. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendant N. Holtons Motion for Sum mary Judgment [doc. #58] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims against Deputy Holton are dismissed with prejudice. It is further ORDERED that Defendant City of McKinney Police Department is DISMISSED, as the record reflects that this Defendant has never been served. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this civil action. All motions by either party not previously ruled on are hereby DENIED. This is a final judgment disposing of all claims and parties. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 3/30/2012. (kls, )
August 16, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 49 MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE granting 37 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Heath Peacock, 42 Report and Recommendation. The Court, having made a de novo review of Plaintiff's constru ed objections (Dkt. #47), is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the objections are without merit. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the f indings and conclusions of this Court. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendant Sergeant Heath Peacock's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #37) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims against Sergeant Peacock are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 8/16/2011. (kls, ) (Sent regular and certified mail 7010 2780 0000 9134 8202)
February 11, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 29 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 12 Motion to Dismiss filed by Texas Department of Public Safety, 23 Report and Recommendations. Defendant Texas Department of Public Safetys Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Texas Department of Public Safety is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 2/11/11. (cm, )
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 Texas Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: McKinney v. Texas Department of Public Safety 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: Richard McKinney
Represented By: James C Belt, Jr
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: Texas Department of Public Safety
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: Heath Peacock
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?