BOUNDS v. PARSONS, -JFM-15-1033. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Maryland
Number: infdco20160713905
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jun. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 06, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM J. FREDERICK MOTZ , District Judge . Plaintiff has instituted this action against Benjamin C. Parsons and Christopher K. Taylor, members of the Wicomico County Sheriff's Office, and Keith Heacook and Travis Dallam, members of the Delmar Police Department for the use of excessive force. Discovery has been completed, and defendants have moved for summary judgment. The motions will be granted. As to defendants Heacook and Dallam, plaintiff has presented no facts to implicate them
Summary: MEMORANDUM J. FREDERICK MOTZ , District Judge . Plaintiff has instituted this action against Benjamin C. Parsons and Christopher K. Taylor, members of the Wicomico County Sheriff's Office, and Keith Heacook and Travis Dallam, members of the Delmar Police Department for the use of excessive force. Discovery has been completed, and defendants have moved for summary judgment. The motions will be granted. As to defendants Heacook and Dallam, plaintiff has presented no facts to implicate them i..
More
MEMORANDUM
J. FREDERICK MOTZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff has instituted this action against Benjamin C. Parsons and Christopher K. Taylor, members of the Wicomico County Sheriff's Office, and Keith Heacook and Travis Dallam, members of the Delmar Police Department for the use of excessive force. Discovery has been completed, and defendants have moved for summary judgment. The motions will be granted.
As to defendants Heacook and Dallam, plaintiff has presented no facts to implicate them in any use of excessive force against him. As to defendant Parsons and Taylor, although plaintiff does present facts that would implicate them in the use of excessive force against him, he ignores the fact that, as found by the District Court for Wicomico County, Maryland, he was drunk at the time the matters in controversy occurred. Moreover, his rendition of the facts is inconsistent with a videotape of the occurrence, which was taken by a security camera at Bar Freightliner, which was adjacent to where the occurrence happened.1 Although the videotape is general in nature, having been taken some distance away from the occurrence, it confirms the officers' testimony about what occurred.
Under the circumstances plaintiff has failed to present a genuine dispute of material fact as to what occurred. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to the summary judgment which they seek.
FootNotes
1. Inexplicably, plaintiff alleges that the videotape was withheld from him but it was introduced in the criminal proceeding.
Source: Leagle