McCall v. Crosswaite et al (MAG+)
Plaintiff: |
Harry L. McCall |
Defendant: |
Bobby Bright, W. G. Crosswaite and Arthur Baylor |
Case Number: |
2:2007cv00870 |
Filed: |
September 28, 2007 |
Court: |
US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
Office: |
Montgomery Office |
County: |
Montgomery |
Presiding Judge: |
Charles S. Coody |
Presiding Judge: |
William Keith Watkins |
Nature of Suit: |
Civil Rights: Other |
Cause of Action: |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
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 |
December 23, 2008 |
Filing
60
ORDERED as follows: (1) the 56 Recommendation is REJECTED and defendants' 57 objections are SUSTAINED with respect to McCall's 1983 claim against Officer Crosthwait in his individual capacity for use of excessive force. Defendants' ; 46 motion for summary judgment is therefore granted with respect to that claim; (2) there being no objections to the recommendation on the excessive force claims against defendant Mayor Bobby Bright and Chief of Police Arthur Baylor, and upon an independent review of the record, the 56 recommendation that the defendants' 46 motion for summary judgment be granted is ADOPTED and the 46 motion is granted, with respect to those claims; (3) having dismissed the federal claims, the cour t declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The 56 recommendation is therefore REJECTED with respect to the state-law claims, and they are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The clerk of court is directed to close this case. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 12/23/08. (sl, )
|
October 21, 2008 |
Filing
56
RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge as follows: (1) to the extent the plaintiff claims that Officer Crosthwaite used excessive force against him in the Montgomery Municipal Jail in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the 46 motion for summary jud gment be denied; (2) to the extent the plaintiff sues the defendants in their official capacities with respect to the state law battery claim, the 46 motion is due to be granted; (3) to the extent the plaintiff sues the defendants in their individu al capacities with respect to the state law battery claim, the 46 motion is due to be denied; (4) the 46 motion for summary judgment with respect to the remaining claims against the defendants be granted; (5) the excessive force claim against Officer Crosthwaite and the state law battery claim against Officer Crosthwaite, Bright and Baylor be set for a jury trial. Objections to R&R due by 11/3/2008. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 10/21/08. (sl, )
|
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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?