Mead v. Gaston County Police Department et al

Filing 160

ORDER denying 155 Defendants' Motion to Stay Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 10/14/15. (ssh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-00132-GCM
MICHAEL MEAD,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CALVIN SHAW
REGINALD BLOOM
WILLIAM SAMPSON
GASTON COUNTY
J. K. SHAW

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on consideration of Defendants’ motion to stay
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, including the time to respond to that motion.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 18, 2012 alleging nine state and federal
claims against Defendants. (Doc. No. 59). On March 16, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss
Count V on governmental immunity grounds. (Doc. No. 117) On September 14, 2015, Defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims on the basis of qualified, public officer, and
governmental immunity. (Doc. No. 141). On September 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a cross motion
for summary judgment as to Counts II and V. (Doc. No. 150).
On September 18, the present motion was docketed. (Doc. No. 155) Defendants argue
that this Court should first rule on their motions, without considering Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment, because their motions raise threshold issues of immunity. Defendants have
cited no case or rule that provides a basis for staying consideration of Plaintiff’s motion. Moreover,

courts routinely rule on cross motions for summary judgment in cases that involve a determination
of immunity. See, e.g., Hensley v. Koller, 722 F.3d 177, 180 (4th Cir. 2013) (noting that parties
had filed cross motions for summary judgment); Walker v. Prince George’s Cnty., 575 F.3d 426,
428 (4th Cir. 2009); Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 521 (4th Cir. 2003) (same). Thus,
Petitioner’s motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: October 14, 2015