Bryant v. City of Dothan, Alabama et al(JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG2), No. 1:2016cv00913 - Document 28 (M.D. Ala. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER (1) ADOPTING 27 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge; (2) defs' granting 24 Motion for More Definite Statement is granted, and that defs' 24 Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot; (3) plf shall refile his proposed second amended complaint by 7/7/2017; further ORDERING that this case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/28/17. (djy, )

Download PDF
Bryant v. City of Dothan, Alabama et al(JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG2) Doc. 28 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION JETAVIAN BRYANT, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DOTHAN, ALABAMA, a municipal corporation; et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16cv913-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER Pursuant to plaintiff filed subjected to 42 officers. U.S.C. this case excessive This case § is 1983 and claiming force by before state that law the law, he was enforcement court on the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that defendants’ motion for a more definite statement be granted; denied as that moot; defendants’ and that motion plaintiff to be dismiss be directed to refile his proposed second amendment complaint. are no objections to the recommendation. There Upon an Dockets.Justia.com independent and de novo review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 27) is adopted. (2) Defendants’ statement (doc. motion no. 24) for is a more granted, definite and that defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. no. 24) is denied as moot. (3) Plaintiff shall refile his proposed second amended complaint by July 7, 2017. It is further ORDERED that this case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. DONE, this the 28th day of June, 2017. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.