JOHNSON v. PHILADELPHIA POLICE 24TH DISTRICT, No. 2:2016cv05521 - Document 32 (E.D. Pa. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 26 ) IS GRANTED AND JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS OFFICERS GEORGE BURGESS AND ANTHONY PARROTTI AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DOC. NO. 25 ) IS DENIED AS MOOT. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 8/22/2018. 8/23/2018 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(amas)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DARRYL JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. POLICE OFFICER BURGESS, et al. Defendants. : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-5521 ORDER AND NOW, this 22nd day of August, 2018, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 26), Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. No. 27), Defendants’ Reply (Doc. No. 28), and Plaintiff’s Sur-reply (Doc. No. 29), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED and JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Defendant Officers George Burgess and Anthony Parrotti and against Plaintiff. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Respond to Discovery Requests (Doc. No. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg ____________________________ MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J.
]]>
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.
