Sullivan v. DeRamcy et al

Filing 73

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT for 69 Report and Recommendations, denying 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Dwight Sullivan, denying 45 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Dwight Sullivan.. Signed by Judge David Folsom on 3/8/10. (mrm, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION DWIGHT SULLIVAN v. STEPHANIE DeRAMCY, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:08cv168 MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ON THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The Plaintiff Dwight Sullivan, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaining of alleged violations of his constitutional rights. This Court ordered that the case be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. Sullivan has filed two motions for summary judgment, saying first that he is seeking summary judgment as to the destruction of his property by the Defendants Nita Burgess, David Coleman, and Lori Price. In the second motion, he repeats the allegations of his complaint, saying that the Defendants have made perjured statements, failed to send out his legal mail, conspired against him in various ways, failed to report assaults against him, engaged in organized criminal activities, retaliated against him, deprived him of his freedom of expression, placed him in "state created danger," stole his personal property, and interfered with investigations into their alleged wrongdoing. After review of the motions, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report on February 1. 2010, recommending that the motions for summary judgment be denied. The Magistrate Judge observed that Sullivan had not met his burden of proof to show that there were no disputed issues of fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Instead, Sullivan simply recounted his version of 1 events and asked that he be granted summary judgment on this basis. In the absence of a showing that there are no disputed issues of fact and that the movant is entitled to a matter of law, Sullivan has failed to show that he is entitled to summary judgment, and his objections are without merit. The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of the pleadings in this cause, including the Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment, the Report of the Magistrate Judge, and the Plaintiff's objections thereto. Upon such de novo review, the Court has concluded that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and that the Plaintiff's objections are without merit. It is accordingly . ORDERED that the Plaintiff's objections are overruled and that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment (docket no.'s 25 and 45) are hereby DENIED. SIGNED this 8th day of March, 2010. ____________________________________ DAVID FOLSOM 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?