PRATT v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PHILADELPHIA COUNTY et al
Filing
85
ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS SECOND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. THE FEDERAL CLAIMS FOR UNLAWFUL SEIZURE, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, AND EXCESSIVE FORCE AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS BRISON AND RIOS REMAIN UNAFFECTED BY THIS ORDER. THE COMMON LAW ASSAULT, BATTERY, FALSE ARREST, AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CLAIMS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS BRISON AND RIOS REMAIN UNAFFECTED BY THIS ORDER. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 4/23/2013. 4/24/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(sg, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RAYMOND S. PRATT,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
No. 11-1346
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of April, 2013, upon consideration of Defendants’ Second
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and for the reasons stated in this Court’s Memorandum
dated April 23, 2013, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.
The motion (Document No. 82) is GRANTED.
2.
The federal claims for unlawful seizure, malicious prosecution, and excessive
force against Police Officers Brinson and Rios remain unaffected by this Order.
3.
The common law assault, battery, false arrest, and malicious prosecution claims
against Police Officers Brinson and Rios remain unaffected by this Order.
BY THE COURT:
Berle M. Schiller, J.
]]>
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?
