Boyd v. Town of Hayneville et al (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG2)
| Daniel Boyd |
| Town of Hayneville, Kelvin Mitchell, Sheryll Phipher, George Davis, Carole Scrushy, David Daniel and Kim Payton |
| 2:2016cv00068 |
| February 2, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
| Montgomery Office |
| Montgomery |
| Gray M. Borden |
| William Keith Watkins |
| 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
61
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED IN PART AND REJECTED IN PART as follows: 1. The motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 43 ) is GRANTED as to all claims against Defen dants David Daniel, George Davis, Kim Payton, Sheryll Phipher, and Carole Scrushy in their individual and official capacities, and these Defendants are DISMISSED from this action. 2. As to the following claims, Defendant Kelvin Mitchell's motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 41 ) is GRANTED IN PART, and summary judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Kelvin Mitchell and against Plaintiff Daniel Boyd: a. Counts 1 and 2, only to the extent asserted against Defendant Mitchell in his official capacity; b. all remaining federal claims (Counts 3-13);c. Count 14, only to the extent asserted against Defendant Mitchell in his official capacity; and d. all remaining state law claims (Counts 15-18). In all other respects, Defendant Mitchell 9;s motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 41 ) is DENIED. 3. On the following claims, Defendant Town of Haynevilles motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 43 ) is GRANTED IN PART, and summary judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Town of Hayneville and against Plaintiff Daniel Boyd: a. all federal claims (Counts 1-7); and b. Count 9, only as to Plaintiff's first negligence theory seeking to hold Defendant Town of Hayneville liable for Defendant Mitchell's allegedly negligent act in &q uot;the issuance and execution" of warrants for Plaintiff's arrest; and c. all remaining state law claims (Counts 10-1821). In all other espects, Defendant Town of Hayneville's motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 43 ) is DENIED. By s eparate order, a new trial date will be set for the remaining claims, which are as follows: 1. Against Defendant Mitchell in his individual capacity: a. Counts 1 and 2, which are consolidated into a single 1983 malicious prosecution claim arising out of the procurement of the April 17, 2014 warrant; and b. Count 14, a state law malicious prosecution claim arising out of the procurement of the April 17, 2014 warrant. 2. Against Defendant Town of Hayneville: Count 9, a state law claim for negligence on Plaintiff's theory that the mayor negligently rehired Defendant Mitchell after his suspension. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/14/2017. (kh, )
|
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
- 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.
