Moody v. The City of Newport News, Virginia et al
| Corey Moody |
| The City of Newport News, Virginia, James D. Fox, Richard W. Myers, Danielle Hollandsworth, Russel Tinsley, Randy Gibson and Ryan Norris |
| 4:2014cv00099 |
| July 31, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Newport News Office |
| Hampton City |
| Mark S. Davis |
| Tommy E. Miller |
| Other 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
97
OPINION AND ORDER, entered and filed 6/16/16: This matter comes before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment by Hollandsworth, ECF No. 59 , and a Motion for Summary Judgment by Gibson (collectively "Defendants"), ECF No. 62 . Hollandsworth and Gibson are the only Defendants remaining in this case, as the other Defendants were previously dismissed. ECF Nos. 33 , 50 , 67 , 68 . Defendants Hollandsworth and Gibson both assert that they did not violate Plaintiff� 39;s constitutional rights and they are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions on December 12, 2012, and urge the Court to grant summary judgment. With the Motions fully briefed, and oral argument completed, this matter is ripe f or consideration. As outlined in this Opinion and Order and the Foot Notes, Defendant Hollandsworth's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 59 , is GRANTED, and Defendant Gibson's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 62 , is GRANT ED. As a result of the Court's rulings in these matters, both Defendants Hollandsworth and Gibson are DISMISSED from the present action. (See Opinion and Order and Foot Notes for Specifics) (Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 6/16/16). Copies provided 6/17/16.(ecav, )
|
|
Filing
45
AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER entered and filed 3/25/15: This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6, filed by Defendants, The City of Newport News, Virginia ("the City"), James D. Fox ("Chief Fox"), and Richar d W. Myers ("Chief Myers" or, collectively with the City and Chief Fox, "City Defendants"). After examining the briefs and the record, the Court determines that oral argument is unnecessary because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented and oral argument would not aid in the decisional process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Va. Loc. R. 7(J). For the reasons set forth in this Amended Opinion and Order, City Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF NO. 6, is GRAN TED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court GRANTS City Defendants' motion with respect to Plaintiff's claims against Chiefs Fox and Myers and DISMISSES those claims. The Court GRANTS City Defendants' motion with respect to Plaintiff� 39;s claims against the City predicating Monell liability on an express policy and on a failure to supervise. The Court PROVIDES Plaintiff with leave to amend the Complaint against the City to cure all defects within twenty one (21) days after the en try of this Opinion and Order. If Plaintiff fails to adequately amend the Complaint within the period prescribed, Plaintiff's express policy and failure-to-supervise claims against the City will be dismissed with prejudice. The Court DENIES Cit y Defendants' motion, ECF No. 6, with respect to Plaintiff's claims against the City predicating Monell liability on the decision of a person with final policy making authority and the City's failure to train its officers in the constitutional limits on the use of deadly force. (See Order and Foot Notes for Specifics) (Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 3/25/15). Copies provided as directed on 3/25/15. (ecav, )
|
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 Virginia Eastern 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.
