McElroy v. Bessemer, Alabama, City of et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|March 20, 2017
MEMORANDUM OPINION - The sole remaining claim is Plaintiffs § 1983 excessive force against Officer Kinderknect. (Id.). Officer Kinderknecht has now moved for summary judgment. (Doc. 28). The motion is fully briefed and ripe for review. (D ocs. 29, 31, 36). For the reasons stated below, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. There being no genuine issue of material fact, Officer Kinderknect is entitled qualified immunity and to summary judgment on Plaintiffs excessive force claim. A separate order will be entered. Signed by Magistrate Judge John H England, III on 3/20/2017. (KEK)
|April 13, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Defendants removed this action to this Court and now move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The motion is fully briefed and ripe for review. For the reasons stated, the Motion to Dismiss 5 is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' (1) §1983 claim against the City of Bessemer only, (2) wrongful death claim, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The motion is DENIED as to the sole remaining claim, Plaintiffs' §1983 claim against Officer Kinderknecht. The parties are reminded of their obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including local rule variations. The parties should pay particular attention to Rules 7.1, 26 and 16. Signed by Magistrate Judge John H England, III on 4/13/15. (CTS, )
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 Northern 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?