Stewart v. Perry et al, No. 1:2007cv01270 - Document 77 (S.D. Miss. 2009)
Court Description: SUMMARY JUDGMENT pursuant to the Memorandum Opinion 76 entered this date: The Harrison County Defendants' motion 67 for summary judgment is granted; Plaintiff's claims advanced against these Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 are dismissed with prejudice; Plaintiff's claims against these Defendants in their individual capacities, if any, are dismissed without prejudice; the parties shall bear their respective costs relative to this motion. See Summary Judgment for complete text. Signed by District Judge Walter J. Gex III on September 16, 2009. (Gex, Kathleen)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION TANYA DENISE STEWART PLAINTIFF VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07cv1270-WJG-JMR JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI; ET AL. DEFENDANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS MATTER is before the Court on motion [67] for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 filed by Defendants Harrison County Board of Supervisors, Harrison County Youth Court Judge Michael H. Ward, Harrison County Youth Court Prosecutor Herbert Wilson, and Harrison County Guardian Ad Litem Angelique White (collectively, the Harrison County Defendants). Pursuant to the Memorandum Opinion entered in this cause, this date, incorporated herein by reference, it is therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Harrison County Defendants' motion [67] for summary judgment be, and is hereby, granted. It is further, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all claims advanced against these Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 be, and are hereby, dismissed with prejudice. It is further, ORDER AND ADJUDGED that all claims advanced against these Defendants in their individual capacities under state law, if any, be, and are hereby, dismissed without prejudice. It is further, Page 1 of 2 ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that each party bear their respective costs associated with this motion. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 16th day of September, 2009. UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 2
]]>
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.
