ALEXANDER et al v. THE CITY OF GREENSBORO et al
| LAWRENCE ALEXANDER, JR., ELLIS ALLEN, MITCHELL ALSTON, FRANCES R. BANKS, AHMED BLAKE, MICHAEL O. BRODIE, KEVIN E. CHANDLER, CHARLES E. CHERRY, ERNEST CUTHBERTSON, DARRIN DAVIS, STEVEN A. EVANS, WILLIAM GRAVES, MILFORD J. HARRIS, JONATHAN HEARD, ANTUAN HINSON, STEPHEN L. HUNTER, BRIAN JAMES, DEMETRIUS W. JOHNSON, JOHN O. LEGRANDE, GEORGE M. LITTLE, DARRELL MCDONALD, C.L. MELVIN, STACY A. MORTON, JR., WILLIE PARKER, LARRY PATTERSON, JR., WILLIAM A. PHIFER, JOSEPH PRYOR, NORMAN RANKIN, WAYNE REDFERN, ALEXANDER RICKETTS, RONALD ROGERS, STEVEN SNIPES, CALVIN STEVENS, JR., ERIC STEVENSON, JERMEIER JACKSON-STROUD, JULIUS TUNSTALL, ALLEN WALLACE, FRANK YOUNG and MICHAEL WAYLAND WALL |
| THE CITY OF GREENSBORO, DAVID WRAY, RANDALL BRADY, TRUDY WADE and SCOTT SANDERS |
| 1:2009cv00293 |
| April 17, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| Guilford |
| THOMAS D. SCHROEDER |
| P. TREVOR SHARP |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race) |
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
318
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 12/18/2013. For the reasons stated, the court concludes that Cherry and Pryor have failed to produce sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in their favor on the hostile work environment, tortious interference, and breach of contract claims. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motions for summary judgment by the City (Doc. 179 ), Wade (Doc. 183 ), and the GPD Defendants (Doc. 181 ) are GRANTED, and that the case be DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to strike (Doc. 261 ; Doc. 191 in case 1:09CV934) are DENIED AS MOOT. Associated Cases: 1:09-cv-00293-TDS-JEP, 1:09-cv-00934-TDS-JEP(Solomon, Dianne)
|
|
Filing
75
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) by Defendant The City of Greensboro (Doc. 62 ) is DENIED. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of C ivil Procedure 12(c) by Defendant David Wray (Doc. 64 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: The motion, treated in part as a motion for summary judgment, is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs Equal Protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which are D ISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff Antuan Hinsons Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and invasion-of-privacy claim. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c ) by Defendants Randall Brady and Scott Sanders (Doc. 66 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff Steven A. Evans disparate treatment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as again st Brady and Sanders; The motion, treated in part as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs Equal Protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; The motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff Antuan Hinsons Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and invasion-of-privacy claim. Signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 8/3/2011. (Lapira, Sharon)
|
|
Filing
49
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows: (1) 27 Defendant City of Greensboros Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is DENIED as to Plaintiffs breach of contract claim (Count I); it is GR ANTED as to all other claims against the City (Counts II, III, IV, V, VI, VIII, IX [sic] (Injunction)), which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (2) 29 Defendant Trudy Wades Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is DENIED as to Plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage against Wade in her individual capacity (Count VII in part); it is GRANTED as to all other claims against Wade (Counts IV, V, VI, VII in part, VIII, IX (Civil Conspi racy), IX [sic] (Injunction)), which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (3) 24 Defendant David Wrays Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is DENIED as to: (a) Plaintiffs hostile work environment claim under 42 U.S.C. 67; 1981 against Wray in his individual capacity (Count II in part); (b) Plaintiff Steven A. Evans disparate treatment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Wray in his individual capacity (Count II in part); and (c) Plaintiffs Equal Protection c laim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Wray in his individual capacity (Count V in part). The motion is DENIED AS MOOT as to: (a) Plaintiff Lawrence Alexander Jr.s disparate discipline claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Wray in his individu al capacity (Count II in part); (b) Plaintiff Antuan Hinsons Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Wray in his individual capacity (Count V in part); and (c) Plaintiff Antuan Hinsons invasion of privacy claim against Wray in his individual capacity (Count VI in part), insofar as the proposed SAC may be filed as to these claims. The motion is GRANTED as to all other claims against Wray (Counts II in part, III, IV, V in part, VI in part, VIII, IX (Civil Conspiracy), IX [sic] (Injunction)), which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (4) 22 Defendants Randall Brady and Scott Sanders Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is DENIED as to: (a) Plaintiffs hostile work environment claim under 42 U.S.C . § 1981 against Brady and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count II in part); (b) Plaintiff Steven A. Evans disparate treatment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Brady and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count II in part) ; and (c) Plaintiffs Equal Protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Brady and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count V in part). The motion is DENIED AS MOOT as to: (a) Plaintiff Lawrence Alexander Jr.s disparate discipline claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Brady and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count II in part); (b) Plaintiff Antuan Hinsons Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Brady and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count V in part); and (c) Plaintiff Antuan Hinsons invasion of privacy claim against Brady and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count VI in part), insofar as the proposed SAC may be filed as to these claims. The motion is GRANTED as to all other cla ims against Brady and Sanders (Counts II in part, III, IV, V in part, VI in part, VIII (as to Brady), IX (Civil Conspiracy), IX [sic] (Injunction)), which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (5) 32 Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Comp laint is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED as to: (a) Plaintiffs breach of contract claim against the City (Count I); (b) Plaintiffs hostile work environment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Wray, Brady, and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count II in part); (c) Plaintiff Steven A. Evans disparate treatment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Wray, Brady, and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count II in part); (d) Plaintiff Lawrence Alexande r Jr.s disparate discipline claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Wray, Brady, and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count II in part); (e) Plaintiffs Equal Protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Wray, Brady, and Sanders in th eir individual capacities (Count V in part); (f) Plaintiff Antuan Hinsons Fourth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Wray, Brady, and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count V in part); (g) Plaintiff Antuan Hinsons invasion of p rivacy claim against Wray, Brady, and Sanders in their individual capacities (Count VI in part); and (h) Plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage against Wade in her individual capacity (Count VII in part). Otherwise, the motion is DENIED on grounds of futility. Plaintiffs shall file their Second Amended Complaint in conformance with this order within twenty (20) days. Signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 1/5/2011. (Solomon, Dianne)
|
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 North Carolina Middle 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.
