Harvey v. Large et al

Filing 79

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 66 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 68 Motion for Summary Judgment; defendants Franklin, Collins, Gibson, Addington, Woliver, and Miller are directed to FILE a motion for summary judgment addressing, inter alia, the merits of Harvey's excessive force and living conditions claims as they relate to the use of five-point restraints. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 1/31/2017. (tvt)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION TERRENCE A. HARVEY, Plaintiff, v. T.D. LARGE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 7:15cv00401 ORDER By: Norman K. Moon United States District Judge In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered this day, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants Mullins and Kelly’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 68) is GRANTED, defendants Large, Sykes, Collins, Franklin, Miller, Woliver, Gibson, Addington, Still, McCowan, and Dockery’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 66) is DENIED in part as to Harvey’s claims concerning the use of five-point restraints against defendants Franklin, Collins, Gibson, Addington, Woliver, and Miller, and GRANTED in part as to all the remaining claims and against all the remaining defendants. The Clerk shall TERMINATE Large, Sykes, Still, McCowan, Dockery, Mullins, and Kelly as defendants to this action. Pursuant to Standing Order 2013-6, defendants Franklin, Collins, Gibson, Addington, Woliver, and Miller are directed to FILE a motion for summary judgment addressing, inter alia, the merits of Harvey’s excessive force and living conditions claims as they relate to the use of fivepoint restraints. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order and the accompanying memorandum opinion to the parties. 31st ENTER: This ____ day of January, 2017.

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?