Colebrook v. Ky. Dept. of Motor Vehicle Enforcement et al
| John Colebrook |
| Ky. Dept. of Motor Vehicle Enforcement, Mark Scott, Kentucky State Police and Unknown Police Officers of the Ky. State Police Department |
| 2:2008cv00110 |
| June 20, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| Grant |
| David L. Bunning |
| Both |
| Federal Question |
| 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
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
105
MEMORANDUM ORDER: 1) Dft's obj. to plf's witness and exhibit lists 85 is sustained. With exception of plf. himself, plf. shall only be permitted to call as witnesses at trial any any person named on dft's witness list 78 and plf. shall be permitted to use as an exhibit at trial only those exhibits set forth on dft's ex. list 78 ; 2) Dft's motion to strike deposition of Dr. Travis Hunt 98 is granted; 3) Court sua sponte strikes plf's notice of deposition of Dr. Steven Mangine 102 because Dr. Mangine is not named on dft's witness list. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman on 2/15/2011.(KRS)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
73
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER; 1)For reasons stated in Court's 7/27/2010 opinion, the Unknown Police Officers of the Ky. State Police Department are dismissed without prejudice based upon pla's failure to timely amend his complaint an d failure to perfect service; 2) 48 MOTION for Summary Judgment of the sole remaining defendant, officer Scott in his individual capacity is granted in part as follows: a)All claims against Def Scott are dismissed with prejudice as mo re fully discussed, except pla's Fourth Amendment claim alleging the excessive use of force during pla's arrest and pla's related claim for excessively tight handcufs; b)The def's motion as it seeks judgment based on the defect in service is denied due to def's waiver; 3)All discovery having been completed, A FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE set for 1/19/2011 at 01:30 PM with a JURY TRIAL to commence on 3/2/2011 at 09:30 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman on 12/02/2010.(LST)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
68
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER; 1)Pla to Show Cause Response due by 8/9/2010 why the Unknown Police Officers of the Kentucky state Police should not be dismissed without prejudice based upon pla's failure to timely amend his complaint and fai lure to perfect service w/in 120 days as required under Rule 4(m); 2)Either party may file supplemental memoranda concerning the issues discussed herein by 8/9/2010; 3)Any responsive memoranda to be filed by 8/23/2010; 4)Given the length of the def's motion for summary judgment has been pending, NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS TO THIS DEADLINE WILL BE GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman on 07/27/2010.(LST)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: For the reasons discussed herein, IT IS ORDERED as follows: (1) the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant KSP and Motion for partial dismissal of Unknown KSP Troopers in their Official Capacities 3 be, and it hereby is, granted; (2) the Motion to Dismiss of KDMVE and Defendant Mark Scott in his Official Capacity 5 be, and it hereby is, granted; (3) In view of the dismissals set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) above, Counts I and III of Plaintiff' ;s Complaint be, and they hereby are, dismissed; (PARAGRAPH 4 VACATED PURSUANT TO ORDER 15 )(4) The remaining Defendants shall file answers to the Complaint not later than March 17, 2009. (5) Pursuant to Rule 16 and 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not later than March 24, 2009, all parties, by counsel, shall meet, either in person or by telephone, to discuss the nature and basis of their remaining claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settleme nt or resolution of the case, to make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and to develop a proposed discovery plan. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). (6) Within ten (10) days after the meeti ng required in paragraph (5), the parties shall file a joint status report containing: (a) the proposed discovery plan; (b) the parties' estimate of the time necessary to file pretrial motions; (c) the parties' belief as to whether the matter is suitable for some form of alternative dispute resolution such as mediation; (d) the parties' estimate as to the probable length of trial. Should the parties find that a joint report is not possible, the parties shall each file individual reports which the Court shall entertain for purposes of setting a Scheduling Order for this case. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 3/3/2009.(JMM)cc: COR Modified to vacate paragraph 4 on 3/12/2009 (sealed2, ).
|
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 Kentucky Eastern 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.
