Burks v. Bauman et al, No. 2:2018cv00075 - Document 99 (W.D. Mich. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (jas)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dockets.Justia.com OPINION Burks v. Bauman et al Doc. 99 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Id. Id. Id. Id. Mays v. Gorman Jackson v. Stoddard Id. II. LEGAL STANDARD Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly Conley v. Gibson Gunasekera v. Irwin Twombly Ashcroft v. Iqbal Id. Twombly Id III. ANALYSIS A. Official Capacity Claims Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman See Ex parte Young B. Race and Sexual Orientation Claims Runyon v. McCrary See Zemsky v. City of New York Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Twp. of Richmond Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls See Davis v. Prison Health Services Brand v. Motley Davis, Davis Davis Id. Id. Id. C. Gross Negligence the Ray v. Swager Id. Kroll by Kroll v. DeMorrow Ray Id. Skinner v. Square D Co. Id. the Id. Robinson v. City of Detroit Id. a the Basso v. Mich. Dep’t. of Corr. Id. See also Fletcher v. Mich. Dep’t. of Corr. the See, e.g. Cooper v. Washtenaw Cnty. Bradley v. City of Ferndale Perez v. Oakland Cty. the IV. CONCLUSION granted
]]>
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.
