Hall v. Letcher County Fiscal Court et al
| Paul E. Hall |
| Letcher County Fiscal Court, Donald McCall, Jim Ward and John 1-4 Does |
| 7:2008cv00163 |
| August 18, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| Letcher |
| Amul R. Thapar |
| 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
26
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) dfts motion for summary judgment, 14 , is GRANTED with respect to all of Hall's 1983 claims against Dfts McCall and Ward in their individual capacities. (2) The state law negligence claims against Dfts McC all and Ward in their individual capacities REMAIN PENDING in this case. (3) dfts motion for summary judgment, 14 , is GRANTED with respect to 1983 jail condition claims and all the state law negligence claims against Dft Letcher Count y Fiscal Court and Dfts McCall and Ward in their official capacities (4) The 1983 deliberate indifference to medical care claims against Dft Letcher County Fiscal Court and Dfts McCall and Ward in their official capacities are the subject of Court's Show Cause Order issued concurrent to this Memorandum Opinion and Order. Court will rule on these claims after reviewing Hall's response to Show Cause Order. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar. (TDA)cc: COR Modified cc: on 12/9/2009 (TDA).
|
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.
