Graham v. Godwin et al
Filing
36
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 33 Report and Recommendations; denying 35 Motion for Writ of Mandamus; denying 20 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 28 Motion for Summary Judgment. Case set down for trial. Ordered by Judge Hugh Lawson on 8/30/2011. (nbp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
CHRISTA DONNELL GRAHAM,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 7:10-CV-56 (HL)
v.
Mayor L.E. GODWIN,
Chief of Police LYNWOOD YATES,
Sergeant NOEL COOK, and
Officer SAM FLEMING,
Defendants.
ORDER
The Recommendation (Doc. 33) of United States Magistrate Judge
Thomas Q. Langstaff, entered August 8, 2011, is before the Court. The
Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment
(Docs. 20 and 28) be denied.
Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Recommendation. The Court has
made a de novo review of the Recommendation. After careful consideration, the
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that genuine issues of material fact
remain on the question of whether there was probable cause to arrest Plaintiff on
December 26, 2006.
The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge=s Recommendation
(Doc. 33). Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 20 and 28) are
denied. This case will be tried beginning on October 11, 2011. The pretrial
conference will be held on September 27, 2011. Additional information regarding
the pretrial conference and trial term will be provided to the parties in the very
near future.
Plaintiff has also filed what has been docketed as a Motion for Writ of
Mandamus (Doc. 35) to the Eleventh Circuit. In his petition, Plaintiff requests that
the Eleventh Circuit issue a writ of mandamus directing this Court to grant his
Motions for Summary Judgment. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking any relief from
this Court, his Motion is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 30th day of August, 2011.
s/ Hugh Lawson
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
mbh
2
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?