Gutierrez v. Hassel et al
||Scott Hassel, Scott Pitman, George H Lund, III, Walter M. Ingram, C Fileccia, Chowhan and Purdy
||staff attorney 2
||April 22, 2014
||US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
||Madeline Hughes Haikala
||John H England
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
||28 U.S.C. § 1331
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|September 10, 2018
MEMORANDUM OPINION - Having reviewed the complaint, the plaintiffs medical records, and the magistrate judges report and recommendation, the Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judges factual finding s. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judges report. The Court will issue a separate final order entering judgment as a matter of law in favor of defendants Bryan Scot Pitman, Craig Fileccia, Kashif Chowhan, and Christopher Purdy. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 9/10/2018. (KEK)
|June 28, 2017
ORDER - Having reviewed and considered the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation and Mr. Gutierrezs objections, the Court adopts the magistrate judges report and accepts his recommendation. The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT P REJUDICE all of Mr. Gutierrezs claims, except the excessive force claims against defendants Pittman, Fileccia, Chowhan, and Purdy. The Court RECOMMITS the excessive force claims against defendants Pittman, Fileccia, Chowhan, and Purdy to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 6/28/2017. (KEK)
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?