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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

17-091 - K.J.C. v. The City of Montgomery et al (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG2)


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
17-091 - K.J.C. v. The City of Montgomery et al (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG2)
September 27, 2017
PDF | More
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE as follows: 1. that the defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. # 7) filed on March 16, 2017 be DENIED as moot. 2. that, with respect to K.J.C's 1983 claims against the City of Montgomery, the motion to dismiss be DENIED; 3. that all claims against defendants Finley and Gaskin in their official capacities be DISMISSED as duplicative of the claims against the City of Montgomery; 4. that, with respect to K.J.C.'s state law claim of supervisory and municipal liability, that the motion to dismiss be GRANTED; and 5. that this case be referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings on the remaining claims. Objections to R&R due by 10/11/2017. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 9/27/2017. (kh, ) Modified on 10/5/2017 to reflect as also linked to 17 motion to dismiss (qc/djy, ).
February 27, 2018
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. # 8) is ADOPTED as modified by this Order. 2. Plaintiff's objections (Doc. # 26) are OVERRULED. 3. Plaintiffs requests for leave to amend her Amended Complaint (Doc. # 26, at 6, 7) are DENIED. 4. Defendants' first motion to dismiss (Doc. # 7) is DENIED AS MOOT. 5. Defendants' second motion to dismiss (Doc. # 17) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the motion is: A. DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's 1983 claim against the City, Chief Finley, and Captain Gaskin based on a violation of the Fourth Amendment (Count I); B. GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs claims against Chief Finley and Captain Gaskin in their official capacities, which are DISMISSED as duplicative of the claims against the City; and C. GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's 1983 claims based on violations of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (Counts Two and Three) and her state law claim of supervisory and municipal liability (Count VII), which are DISMISSED. 6. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 2/27/2018. (kh, )