Stoner v. Wills et al
| Marcus Stoner |
| Daniel Wills and Mike Armstrong |
| 3:2008cv00069 |
| October 9, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Pro Se |
| Danny C. Reeves |
| Both |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Civil Rights Act |
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
56
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Defendant Daniel Willis Motion for Summary Judgment [Record No. 53] is GRANTED. 2. This claims asserted in this action by Plaintiff Marcus Stoner are DISMISSED, with prejudice. 3. The Defendants motion in limine [Record No. 52], is DENIED, without prejudice, as moot. 4. This case is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Courts docket. 5. A final, appealable Judgment will be entered this date. (Motions terminated: 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 52 MOTION in Limine). Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 9/24/09.(AKR)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Chief Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 10/8/2008, SUSTAINING 22 Motion to Dismiss. Claims against the City are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Remainder of Plaintiff's claims against the individual Defendants are TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Counsel (RLK) [Transferred from kywd on 10/9/2008.]
|
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.
