ROY v. CITY OF MONROE, 16-1018. (2017)
Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20171023e52
Visitors: 1
Filed: Oct. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 19, 2017
Summary: JUDGMENT ROBERT G. JAMES , District Judge . For the reasons set forth in this Court's Ruling, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 23] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. To the extent that Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff Clarence Dean Roy's claim that Monroe City Ordinance 12:153 is unconstitutional on its face and his municipal claim against the City of Monroe, the motion is GRANTED, and those claims are DISMI
Summary: JUDGMENT ROBERT G. JAMES , District Judge . For the reasons set forth in this Court's Ruling, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 23] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. To the extent that Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff Clarence Dean Roy's claim that Monroe City Ordinance 12:153 is unconstitutional on its face and his municipal claim against the City of Monroe, the motion is GRANTED, and those claims are DISMIS..
More
JUDGMENT
ROBERT G. JAMES, District Judge.
For the reasons set forth in this Court's Ruling,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 23] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. To the extent that Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiff Clarence Dean Roy's claim that Monroe City Ordinance § 12:153 is unconstitutional on its face and his municipal claim against the City of Monroe, the motion is GRANTED, and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion is otherwise DENIED. However, the Court has given notice of its intent to dismiss Plaintiff's claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution against Defendants based on its sua sponte analysis. If the parties wish to respond to the Court's stated intent, they must do so no later than October 30, 2017.
Source: Leagle
