Timothy John Kennedy v. Mark Finely, et al
ORDER: Plaintiff's claims against defendant, Ernest Roger Peele, are DISMISSEDWITH PREJUDICE. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 4/14/2014. (klyon, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 11-cv-00967-REB-KMT
TIMOTHY JOHN KENNEDY,
MARK A. FINLEY,
ERNEST ROGER PEELE,
SHERIFF JOHN WESLEY ANDERSON,
EL PASO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
This matter is before me on the Mandate [#98]1, filed March 4, 2014, of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Pursuant to the Order and
Judgment [#97], filed January 10, 2014, of the appellate court, I am directed to dismiss
the claims against defendant, Ernest Roger Peele, whom the Tenth Circuit has found to
be entitled to qualified immunity as to his pretrial statements.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That plaintiff’s claims against defendant, Ernest Roger Peele, are DISMISSED
2. That at the time judgment enters, judgment with prejudice SHALL ENTER for
“[#98]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
defendant, Ernest Roger Peele, against plaintiff, Timothy John Kennedy, on all claims
for relief and causes of action;
3. That defendant, Ernest Roger Peele, is AWARDED his costs to be taxed by
the clerk of the court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1; and
4. That defendant, Ernest Roger Peele, is DROPPED as a named party to this
action, and the case caption is AMENDED accordingly.
Dated April 14, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
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?