Jane Doe 202a v. McGowan et al
| Jane Doe 202a |
| Leigh Anne McGowan, Charles Francis Wholleb, Anthony M Doxey, Michael Kouris, North Charleston, City of, Sandra J Senn, Senn Legal LLC and Charleston County |
| 2:2016cv00777 |
| March 10, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Charleston Office |
| Charleston |
| Mary Gordon Baker |
| Richard M Gergel |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
178
ORDER AND OPINION denying 177 Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 10/26/2018.(sshe, )
|
|
Filing
174
ORDER AND OPINION adopting in part and declining to adopt in part 168 Report and Recommendation; granting in part and denying in part 120 Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on All R emaining Claims (Dkt. No. 120 ) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs third cause of action for trespass, fourth cause of action for invasion of privacy, tenth cause of action for false imprisonment against the Defendant City based on the actions of Defend ants Wohlleb and Kouris, and twelfth cause of action for defamation. Defendant's Motion is DENIED on Plaintiffs fifth cause of action for negligent hiring, sixth cause of action for negligent supervision, seventh cause of action for negligent r etention, eighth cause of action for assault, ninth cause of action against the Defendant City for battery, ninth cause of action under § 1983 against Defendant McGowan, and tenth cause of action for false imprisonment based on the actions of Defendant McGowan. Further details set forth in Order. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 9/18/2018.(ssam, )
|
|
Filing
171
ORDER AND OPINION adopting 166 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; granting in part and denying in part 70 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 117 Mot ion for Summary Judgment. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Certain Claims based on Collateral Estoppel (Dkt. No. 117) is GRANTED as to claims regarding a warrantless entry into Plaintiff's home on the second, third and four th causes of action, and GRANTED as to the Plaintiff's thirteenth and fourteenth causes of action. The Motion is DENIED as to the twelfth cause of action. Defendants' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on the Merits (Dkt. No. 70) is GRA NTED as to Plaintiff's § 1983 claims in her second, fourth and thirteenth causes of action, GRANTED as to Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against Defendants Wohlleb and Kouris in the tenth cause of action, and DENIED as to Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against Defendant McGowan in the tenth cause of action. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 9/8/2018.(ssam, )
|
|
Filing
105
ORDER AND OPINION adopting 81 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 57 ) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Eleventh and Sixteenth Causes of Action, DENIED as to Plaintiff's Fourth Cause of Action, and found to be MOOT as to the Plaintiff's First and Fifteenth Causes of Action. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 2/15/2018.(ssam, )
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER AND OPINION adopting 34 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; granting 11 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Charleston County. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 2/13/2017.(ssam, )
|
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 South Carolina 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.
