Cline v. City of Mansfield, Ohio et al
| Melanie Cline, Earl Fuller, Thomas Willis and Kiana Willis |
| City of Shelby, City of Ontario, City of Mansfield, Ohio, Richland County, Ohio, A.S.O.R.T. Team, Lance Combs, David Mack, Jim Nicholson, Jeff Alfrey, Jason Bamman, Steve Blust, Brian Evans, Doug Noblet, John Mager and John Doe 1-10 |
| 1:2007cv01070 |
| April 11, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Cleveland Office |
| Richland |
| Ann Aldrich |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights |
| 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
151
Memorandum and Order. Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e) (Related doc # 141 ) is GRANTED. Footnote 36 of the Court's 9/30/2010 Opinion & Order (Related doc # 139 ) is superseded in its entirety as described herein. Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley on 1/27/2011. (H,CM)
|
|
Filing
139
Memorandum and Order. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Related doc # 113 ) recommends that this Court grant in part and deny in part the Defendants' motions. The Court SUSTAINS in part and OVERRULES in part the pa rties' objections. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Testimony (Related doc # 64 ) is MOOT. Motions for Summary Judgment brought by Jeff Alfrey, Jason Bammann, Lance Combs, John Mager, Frank Parella, and Ed Schmit (Related doc #'s 69 , 72 , 94 ) are GRANTED as to those Defendants. Motions for Summary Judgment brought by the municipal defendants (Related doc #'s 69 , 71 , 72 , 94 ) are GRANTED as to those Defendants. Motion for Summary Judgment brought by ASORT as to its ca pacity for suit (Related doc # 70 ) is DENIED and Motion for Summary Judgment brought by ASORT as to the substantive claims against it (Related doc # 71 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Riley Snavely's Motion for Summary Judgment (Re lated doc # 94 ) is DENIED as to him. Motions for Summary Judgment brought by all other Defendants (Related doc #'s 71 , 72 , 94 ) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to those Defendants. Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley on 9/30/2010. (H,CM) (Main Document 139 replaced to correct typographical errors only on 10/1/2010) (H,CM). Modified on 10/1/2010 (H,CM).
|
|
Filing
113
Report and Recommendation. The Court finds that ASORT is a person capable of being sued under Section 1983. Thus, ASORT's motion for summary judgment 70 should be DENIED on that basis. However, for the reasons set forth above, the cour t finds that ASORT did not subject Plaintiffs or cause Plaintiffs to be subjected to the deprivation of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the constitution and that Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims against ASORT are therefore meritless. Accordingly, ASORT's motion for summary judgment 71 should be GRANTED on that basis. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Defendants Combs, Mack, Snavely, and Myers are final policymakers capable of attaching liability to the government entities involved in ASORT through their actions. Therefore, the motions for summary judgment 69 , 71 , 72 and 94 should be GRANTED on the issue of municipal liability. Defendant police officers Alfrey, Combs, Mack, Bammann, Schmidt, Parella, Mager, Myers, and Snavely have asserted qualified immunity. The court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the first eight of these Defendants should be denied qualified immunity. Therefore, the motions for summary judgment 69 , [ 71] 72 and 94 should be granted on that issue as to Defendants Alfrey, Combs, Mack, Bammann, Schmidt, Parella, Mager, and Myers. However, for the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Defendant Snavely is not entitled to qualified immunity. Therefore, the Ontario Defendants' motion for summary judgment should be denied as to Defendant Snavely on the issue of qualified immunity. Objections to R&R due by 6/3/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth S. McHargh on 5/20/09. (R,N)
|
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 Ohio Northern 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.
