Kirby v. Roth et al
JUDGMENT re 72 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the court finds that the plaintiff recover $167.42 against defendants Roth, Barbor, Merrill and Dougan in their individual capacities, and that plaintiff recover nothing on his claim against the def endants on his claim of denial of medical care; further judgment is entered in plaintiff's favor regarding his claim of unconstitutional Taser policies by the City of Barling, and that the City of Barling be given until and including 12/15/10, to file revised policies with the court regarding its Taser policy and the use of force continuum.. Signed by Honorable James R. Marschewski on November 9, 2010. (rw)
Kirby v. Roth et al
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION
DERROL DEE KIRBY, III v. Civil No. 06-2168
JOHN ROTH, Ex-Chief of Police, Barling, Arkansas Police Department; LARRY MERRILL, next in charge under Police Chief, Barling Police Department; CITY OF BARLING; KEVIN DOUGAN, Barling Police Department Patrolman; JOHN BARBOR, Barling Police Department Patrolman JUDGMENT
This action came to trial before the Court. The issues have been tried and a decision has been rendered. For the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of this date, the Court finds that the Plaintiff recover $167.42 against Defendants Roth, Barbor, Merrill, and Dougan in their individual capacities, and that Plaintiff recover nothing on his claim against the Defendants on his claim of denial of medical care. Further, it is found that judgment be entered in Plaintiff's favor regarding his claim of unconstitutional Taser policies by the City of Barling, and that the City of Barling be given until and including December 15, 2010, to file revised policies with the Court regarding its Taser policy and the use of force continuum. IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of November 2010.
/s/ J. Marschewski HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
Why Is My Information Online?