Staten v. Panola County, Texas et al

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 5/6/2014. (ch, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION RICKEY STATEN v. PANOLA COUNTY, TEXAS, ET AL. § § § § § Case No. 2:13CV483-RSP MEMORANDUM ORDER Currently before the Court is Defendant Panola County, Texas (“Panola”)’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support (Dkt. No. 33, filed February 10, 2014.) No responsive briefing was filed. Panola moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff has presented no evidence that Panola 1) has deficient actual policies, procedures, practices, and customs that tolerate its deputies’ deprivation of personal property without due process of law or that such deficient policies, procedures, practices, and customs were the moving force behind the alleged deprivation; 2) fails to adequately supervise its deputies, that there was a causal link between such failure and the alleged violation, that there was a deliberate indifference to supervision or that such inadequate supervision was the moving force behind the alleged deprivation; and 3) provides inadequate training to its deputies, that Panola’s policy maker was deliberately indifferent in adopting policies, that there has been a pattern of similar violations, or that the such inadequate training was the moving force behind the alleged deprivation. The Court, having reviewed Panola’s briefing, the record, and the applicable authorities, hereby finds that there is no genuine dispute of material facts, and therefore GRANTS Panola’s Motion (Dkt. No. 33.) Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Panola is therefore dismissed with prejudice. SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012. SIGNED this 5th day of May, 2014. ____________________________________ ROY S. PAYNE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -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?