Fatan v. Tillman
Filing
40
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 26 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Fred Tillman, City of Denison, 35 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 2/27/2013. (baf, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
ADRIAN FATAN,
Plaintiff,
V.
FRED TILLMAN,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NO. 4:11cv812
Judge Clark/Judge Mazzant
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this
matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636. On January 31, 2013, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #26]
be granted in part and denied in part.
Having received the report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto
having been timely filed, this court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report as the findings and conclusions
of the court.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #26] is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court dismisses plaintiff’s claims for malicious
prosecution as time-barred. The court further dismisses plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against
Tillman in his official capacity. Finally, the court dismisses plaintiff’s state tort claims for
1
intentional infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment against Tillman in his individual
capacity. The court denies the motion on all other grounds.
So ORDERED and SIGNED on February _____, 2013.
27
__________________________________________
Ron Clark
United States District 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?