VINSON v. MCNESBY et al
Filing
74
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 73 Oral Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law for reasons stated in open court. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 7/29/2011. (sps)
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
BARBARA VINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No.: 3:08cv392/MCR/EMT
DAVID MORGAN, in his official
capacity as Escambia County
Sheriff, JOHNNY WILSON; PATSY
SPEARS; STEPHEN SCHAFF; and
JIMMY TATUM,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
A jury trial was held in this civil rights case from July 25, 2011, through July 27,
2011. After the Plaintiff rested, the Defendants made a motion for a judgment as a matter
of law pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on all counts as to
Defendants David Morgan, Patsy Spears, Stephen Schaff, and Jimmy Tatum; the motion
was offered as to Defendant Johnny Wilson only as to Count VIII.1 The court issued an
oral ruling granting the motion in part and denying the motion in part.
memorializes that ruling.
This order
Thus, for the reasons stated on the record at trial, the
Defendants’ Rule 50(a) motion was:
1.
GRANTED as to Defendant Stephen Schaff on all counts against him;
2.
GRANTED as to Defendant David Morgan in his official capacity as
Escambia County Sheriff on Count II (§ 1983) but DENIED on Counts IV (battery) and V
(false arrest);
3.
GRANTED as to Defendants Patsy Spears and Jimmy Tatum on Count VI
(malicious prosecution) and Count VIII (intentional infliction of emotional distress); and
1
Counts III and VII were voluntarily dism issed as to all Defendants prior to trial (doc. 50).
Page 2 of 2
4.
DENIED as to Defendant Johnny Wilson on Count VIII (intentional infliction
of emotional distress).
DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of July, 2011.
s/
M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?