SKRABEC v. TOWN OF NORTH ATTLEBORO, 1:15-cv-10673-NMG. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts
Number: infdco20170118i32
Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2016
Summary: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS, TOWN OF NORTH ATTLEBORO, DANIEL ARRIGHI, JOSHUA MCMAHON AND KEVIN MCKEON NATHANIEL M. GORTON , District Judge . Now come the Defendants, Daniel Arrighi, Joshua McMahon, Kevin McKeon and the Town of North Attleboro (hereinafter "Town Defendants"), in the above captioned case, and hereby move this Honorable Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 to enter Summary Judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs on all counts of the Complaint against
Summary: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS, TOWN OF NORTH ATTLEBORO, DANIEL ARRIGHI, JOSHUA MCMAHON AND KEVIN MCKEON NATHANIEL M. GORTON , District Judge . Now come the Defendants, Daniel Arrighi, Joshua McMahon, Kevin McKeon and the Town of North Attleboro (hereinafter "Town Defendants"), in the above captioned case, and hereby move this Honorable Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 to enter Summary Judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs on all counts of the Complaint against t..
More
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS, TOWN OF NORTH ATTLEBORO, DANIEL ARRIGHI, JOSHUA MCMAHON AND KEVIN MCKEON
NATHANIEL M. GORTON, District Judge.
Now come the Defendants, Daniel Arrighi, Joshua McMahon, Kevin McKeon and the Town of North Attleboro (hereinafter "Town Defendants"), in the above captioned case, and hereby move this Honorable Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 to enter Summary Judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiffs on all counts of the Complaint against them. As grounds for this Motion, the Town Defendants state that:
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Counts I & II), Conspiracy (Count III), Negligence (Count IV), Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count V), Malicious Prosecution (Count VI); and, Loss of Consortium (Count VII). As discovery is now complete, Summary Judgment in favor of the Town Defendants is appropriate, because:
A. Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the individual defendants foils (Count I) because probable cause existed to arrest the Plaintiff;
B. Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the Town fails (Count II) because there is no evidence of the requisite unconstitutional policy;
Motion allowed.
Source: Leagle
