Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

07-870 - McCall v. Crosswaite et al (MAG+)


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
07-870 - McCall v. Crosswaite et al (MAG+)
October 21, 2008
PDF | More
RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge as follows: (1) to the extent the plaintiff claims that Officer Crosthwaite used excessive force against him in the Montgomery Municipal Jail in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the 46 motion for summary judgment be denied; (2) to the extent the plaintiff sues the defendants in their official capacities with respect to the state law battery claim, the 46 motion is due to be granted; (3) to the extent the plaintiff sues the defendants in their individual capacities with respect to the state law battery claim, the 46 motion is due to be denied; (4) the 46 motion for summary judgment with respect to the remaining claims against the defendants be granted; (5) the excessive force claim against Officer Crosthwaite and the state law battery claim against Officer Crosthwaite, Bright and Baylor be set for a jury trial. Objections to R&R due by 11/3/2008. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 10/21/08. (sl, )
December 23, 2008
PDF | More
ORDERED as follows: (1) the 56 Recommendation is REJECTED and defendants' 57 objections are SUSTAINED with respect to McCall's 1983 claim against Officer Crosthwait in his individual capacity for use of excessive force. Defendants' 46 motion for summary judgment is therefore granted with respect to that claim; (2) there being no objections to the recommendation on the excessive force claims against defendant Mayor Bobby Bright and Chief of Police Arthur Baylor, and upon an independent review of the record, the 56 recommendation that the defendants' 46 motion for summary judgment be granted is ADOPTED and the 46 motion is granted, with respect to those claims; (3) having dismissed the federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The 56 recommendation is therefore REJECTED with respect to the state-law claims, and they are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The clerk of court is directed to close this case. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 12/23/08. (sl, )