MCCALISTER v. STEVENS et al
| WILLIAM MCCALISTER |
| SGT. FROSHAUER, S MELTON, SHAFER, JONATHAN STEVENS and WOLFE |
| 2:2018cv00136 |
| March 16, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Mark J. Dinsmore |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
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
80
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Jonathan Stevens, a West Terre Haute police officer, filed an "Intimidation Report" stating that as he was walking near the police station, someone shouted that he was a "f***in g dirty-ass cop" and threatened to shoot him. Officer Stevens's report identified William McCalister as the culprit and led to Mr. McCalister's arrest. Mr. McCalister brought this lawsuit alleging false- arrest claims in violation of federal and state law. Dkt. 1-1 at 5; see dkt. 54. Officer Stevens has moved for summary judgment. Dkt. 57 . Because there are genuine issues of material fact that must be resolved at trial, that motion is DENIED. Sergeant Froschauer, the only other remaining defendant, is DISMISSED with prejudice because Mr. McCalister is not maintaining any claims against him; the Clerk SHALL UPDATE the docket accordingly. (See Order.) Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 9/30/2019. (RSF)
|
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 Indiana Southern 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.
