Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

ALVIN J. SARGENT and DOROTHY WILLIAMS SARGENT versus JENNIFER A. RILEY; GEORGE B DEAN, and PAUL VALTEAU

ORDER AND REASONS

LANCE AFRICK, Magistrate Judge

Pending before the Court are the following motions:

1) The motion of defendant, Orleans Parish Civil Sheriff Paul R. Valteau, Jr., for summary judgment (Rec. Doc. No. 53); and
2) The motion of defendants, Jennifer A. Riley and George B. Dean, for summary judgment and/or to dismiss (Rec. Doc. No. 56).

No opposition memoranda was filed by the pro se plaintiffs to either motion.

Upon review of the motions, memoranda in support, attachments thereto, and the law, for the reasons stated in the memoranda in support of the motions, the Court finds that there are no material issues of fact in dispute and that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See F.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Brown v. City of Houston, Texas. 337 F.3d 539, 540-541 (5th Cir. 2003). "Unsubstantiated assertions, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation are not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment." Id., citing Bridgmon v. Array Sys. Corp., 325 F.3d 572, 577 (5th Cir. 2003); Hugh Symons Group. PLC v. Motorola. Inc., 292 F.3d 466, 468 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion of defendant, Orleans Parish Civil Sheriff Paul R. Valteau, Jr., for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of defendants, Jennifer A. Riley and George B. Dean, for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SARGENT v. RILEY
(Oct 1, 2003)